Townsend v. State
Decision Date | 21 December 2001 |
Citation | 823 So.2d 717 |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Parties | Contrail Kirby TOWNSEND v. STATE. |
Jill Gould, Decatur, for appellant.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and James B. Prude, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
PATTERSON, Retired Appellate Judge.
The appellant, Contrail Kirby Townsend, was convicted of trafficking in cocaine, a violation of § 13A-12-231(2)(a), Ala.Code 1975, and of unlawful distribution of marijuana (two counts), a violation of § 13A-12-211(a). For the trafficking conviction, he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 20 years and one day and was ordered to pay a mandatory minimum fine of $ 50,000. For each distribution conviction, he was sentenced to an enhanced sentence of 12 years' imprisonment and was fined $ 5,000. The two sentences for the distribution convictions are to run concurrently. For each of his three convictions, Townsend was also ordered to pay $50 to the Crime Victims Compensation Fund; $1,000 pursuant to the Drug Demand Reduction Assessment Act; $100 to the Alabama Forensic Services Trust Fund; and court costs, including attorney fees.
On appeal, Townsend contests only his trafficking conviction. He was convicted for trafficking under § 13A-12-231(2)(a). That section states, in pertinent part, that "[a]ny person who ... is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 28 grams or more of cocaine or of any mixture containing cocaine ... is guilty of a felony...." The evidence established that, while fleeing on foot from the police, Townsend discarded a bag containing 22.4 grams of cocaine; that, after Townsend was apprehended that same day, a search of his bedroom in his codefendants' residence produced 17.91 grams of cocaine; and that Townsend admitted ownership of the cocaine found in his bedroom. Townsend contends that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to aggregate these separate quantities, each weighing less than 28 grams, to meet the 28-gram minimum requirement for trafficking. He argues that he should have been prosecuted for two separate charges of possession, i.e., for two violations of § 13A-12-212(a)(1), unlawful possession of a controlled substance. He proposes that the two amounts were from "separate and remote locations and with no other evidence to connect the two quantities of cocaine to each other." (Appellant's brief, p. 8.)
Although our review of the applicable caselaw indicates that prosecutors do aggregate the amounts of separate stashes of a controlled substance to support a prosecution for trafficking, see, e.g., Stanberry v. State, 813 So.2d 932 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), Alabama appellate courts have not squarely addressed this issue. In our consideration of this issue, we have surveyed other jurisdictions' treatment of the question. In Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 431 Mass. 134, 725 N.E.2d 1030 (2000), the defendant and his accomplice were found to be in possession of 135.1 grams of heroin when they were arrested and, later that day, pursuant to the defendant's directions, 98.9 grams were seized at a residence. He was convicted of trafficking in heroin in an amount of 200 grams or more. The court addressed the issue, as follows:1
431 Mass. at 135, 137-40, 725 N.E.2d at 1031, 1033-34 ( ).
In disposing of Townsend's contention, we have also considered the rationale expressed in Hite v. State, 206 Ga.App. 245, 424 S.E.2d 885 (1992). There, neither the cocaine that was seized pursuant to a search of the truck driven by the defendant nor the cocaine subsequently found in the defendant's jacket pocket in his residence pursuant to his direction met the statutory minimum amount of 28 grams to constitute trafficking, but when the amounts were combined, they constituted an amount sufficient for trafficking. In holding that the defendant's conviction for trafficking in cocaine, under a statute virtually identical to Alabama's, was based on sufficient evidence, the court stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hopson v. State
...Girard, 883 So.2d at 715 (citing Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81, 75 S.Ct. 620, 99 L.Ed. 905 (1955) ). In Townsend v. State, 823 So.2d 717 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001), this Court stated:" ‘A single crime cannot be divided into two or more offenses and thereby subject the perpetrator to multip......
-
State v. Marlowe
...75 S.Ct. 620, 99 L.Ed. 905 (1955). See also United States v. Reed, 647 F.2d 678, 681(6th Cir.1981). 11. See, e.g., Townsend v. State, 823 So.2d 717, 722 (Ala.Crim.App.2001); Williams v. State, 796 A.2d 1281, 1285-1286 (Del.2002); Brown v. State, 311 Md. 426, 535 A.2d 485, 488 (1988); Common......
-
Revis v. State Of Ala.
...of lenity requires only one punishment unless legislative intent to impose multiple punishments is shown").'"'"Townsend v. State, 823 So. 2d 717, 722 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001) (footnote omitted [in Girard])."'"Girard [v. State], 883 So. 2d [714] at 715-16 [(Ala. Crim. App. 2002)]."""Robbery is......
-
Revis v. State
...requires only one punishment unless legislative [101 So.3d 334]intent to impose multiple punishments is shown”).’ “ ‘ “Townsend v. State, 823 So.2d 717, 722 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) (footnote omitted [in Girard ] ).” “ ‘Girard [ v. State ], 883 So.2d [714] at 715–16 [ (Ala.Crim.App.2002) ]. “ ‘ ......