Thompson v. State
Decision Date | 27 September 1985 |
Parties | Ex parte State of Alabama. (Re Larry O'Neal THOMPSON v. STATE of Alabama). Ex parte Larry O'Neal THOMPSON. (Re Larry O'Neal Thompson v. State of Alabama). 84-304, 84-305. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Helen P. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner/cross-respondent.
George H. Jones, Birmingham, for respondent/cross-petitioner.
Thomas M. Goggans of Goggans & McInnish, Montgomery, for amicus curiae Alabama Criminal Defense Lawyers Assn.
Appellant Larry Thompson was found guilty of robbery in the first degree in violation of Code 1975, § 13A-8-41. He was sentenced under Code 1975, § 13A-5-9, the Habitual Felony Offender Act, to life imprisonment. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction conditionally and remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at his trial.
Both Thompson and the State ask us to review that judgment. We consolidated both petitions and heard oral arguments. Thompson's primary claim is that he was improperly sentenced under the Habitual Offender Act. We address only Thompson's claim that he was improperly sentenced, and the State's claim that the cause should not have been remanded to the trial court.
The facts surrounding the robbery are adequately set out in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals, 525 So.2d 816, and will not be repeated here.
Thompson's petition presents this question: Can convictions of felonies prior to January 1, 1980, the effective date of Alabama's Criminal Code, Title 13A, be considered to enhance the punishment of an offender? Thompson claims they cannot be considered. He says (1) that the interpretation given by the courts of the word "felony" in the Habitual Offender Act is overbroad and contradicts the meaning of the word "felony" intended by the legislature, and (2) that this Court was without authority to define "felony" as broadly as it did in Temporary Rule 6(b)(3)(iv), because the word "felony" was specifically defined by the legislature in the Alabama Criminal Code.
The applicable provisions of Alabama's Criminal Code and the Temporary Rules of Criminal Procedure adopted by this Court to carry out the intent of the legislature read as follows:
Code 1975, § 13A-1-2(4), defines a "felony":
(Emphasis added.)
An "offense" is defined in Code 1975, § 13A-1-2(1), as follows:
(Emphasis added.)
Code 1975, § 13A-5-9, which authorizes the imposition of additional penalties, provides as follows:
"In all cases when it is shown that a criminal defendant has been previously convicted of any felony and after such conviction has committed another felony, he must be punished as follows: [here are set out the authorized and required sentences]." (Emphasis added.)
Code 1975, § 13A-5-10, provides:
"The court may conduct a hearing upon the issue of whether a defendant is a repeat or habitual offender under section 13A-5-9, according to procedures established by rule of court." (Emphasis added.)
This Court, acting pursuant to the authority granted by the provisions of Code 1975, § 13A-5-10, adopted Temporary Rule 6(b)(3)(iv), Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides:
The basic question presented is one this Court faced when it adopted Temporary Rule 6, and that question is: What did the legislature intend when it authorized the use of prior convictions to enhance the punishment for an offense committed under the provisions of the Alabama Criminal Code?
In determining this intent we are aided somewhat because the legislature itself has spelled out the general rule which courts should use in construing what it meant. In Code 1975, § 13A-1-6, the legislature set out the general rule of construction to be used. That section provides:
(Emphasis added.)
Code 1975, § 13A-1-3, referred to in § 13A-1-6, states the general purposes of the Alabama Criminal Code as follows:
The Commentary to § 13A-1-6 "General Rule of Construction" contains the reasons for that section's inclusion in the Alabama Criminal Code:
law has been made intolerably cumbersome, as the legislative draftsman has sought to anticipate every possible narrow construction.... A strict construction rule had greater merit in former times when the main responsibility for formulating English criminal law lay in the judiciary as a matter of common law. In those circumstances legislation could be regarded as an exceptional intrusion into the main body of judge-made law. There was no systematic code. But when the legislature has assumed responsibility for a comprehensive, integrated Criminal Code, it is not appropriate for the courts to presume that only the least possible alteration of a body of nonstatutory law was intended.' Working Papers, Proposed New Federal Criminal Code, p. 5.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Webb v. State
...for the Georgia conviction would have constituted a felony under current Alabama law if the offense had occurred here. See Ex parte Thompson, 525 So.2d 820 (Ala.1985); Cushing v. State, 455 So.2d 119, 121-22 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Rule 6(b)(3)(iv), The defendant's conviction is affirmed. The ca......
-
Engberg v. Meyer
...of effectiveness is the same for both appellate and trial counsel. Thompson v. State, 525 So.2d 816 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), aff'd 525 So.2d 820 (Ala.1985), cert. denied 488 U.S. 834, 109 S.Ct. 94, 102 L.Ed.2d 70 (1988); Heyward, 524 N.E.2d 15; Com. v. Knapp, 374 Pa.Super. 160, 542 A.2d 546 (1988......
-
Ex parte Harper
...this claim be reviewed, either in that court or in the trial court. Consequently, we remand the cause for that review. See Thompson v. State, 525 So.2d 820 (Ala.1985). III Although the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly held that the indictment was not void for its failure to allege that t......
-
Mitchell v. State
...offense by imprisonment for more than one year, but whether Alabama considered the prior 'conduct' so blameworthy as to Thompson v. State, 525 So.2d 820, 826 (Ala.1985), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 834, 109 S.Ct. 94, 102 L.Ed.2d 70 (1988) (emphasis in original). Therefore, the trial court erred ......