Watson v. State
Decision Date | 14 March 2014 |
Docket Number | CR–12–2002. |
Citation | 164 So.3d 622 |
Parties | Terry Donell WATSON v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Terry Donell Watson, pro se.
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and P. David Bjurberg, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
Terry Donell Watson appeals from the circuit court's dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P. On August 10, 1999, Watson pleaded guilty to two counts of the felony offense of driving under the influence (“DUI”). For each conviction, Watson was sentenced to one year and one day in prison, the sentences to be served concurrently. This Court affirmed Watson's convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Watson v. State (No. CR–99–0064, January 28, 2000), 805 So.2d 792 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (table). The certificate of judgment was issued on August 18, 2000.
On November 7, 2012, Watson filed the instant Rule 32 petition in which he alleged that the convictions used to elevate his August 1999 convictions to felonies were municipal court convictions. He argued that, after the Alabama Supreme Court's decision in Ex parte Holbert, 4 So.3d 410 (Ala.2008), in which the Alabama Supreme Court held that prior municipal convictions cannot be counted toward the total number of convictions necessary to constitute the felony offense of DUI, his prior municipal convictions could not be used to enhance his convictions to felonies; thus, he argued, his sentences for felony DUI were illegal and due to be set aside. The State filed a motion to dismiss Watson's petition. In its motion to dismiss, the State argued that Watson's claim was without merit because, it said, the holding in Ex parte Holbert was not retroactive because it announced a new rule of law. On July 17, 2013, the circuit court dismissed Watson's petition, stating:
(C. 56.) This appeal follows.
On appeal, Watson reasserts the arguments raised in his petition and contends that the circuit court erred in dismissing his petition.
Because the facts presented in this Rule 32 proceeding are undisputed, we are presented with a pure question of law. Therefore, we review this matter applying the de novo standard. Ex parte White, 792 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Ala.2001) ; Brown v. State, 850 So.2d 1261, 1263 (Ala.Crim.App.2002).
This Court's ruling in Shirley v. Alabama Department of Corrections, 68 So.3d 892 (Ala.Crim.App.2011), is dispositive of the claims presented in the petition, and is quoted below.
68 So.3d at 894–95.
In Shirley, this Court held that Shirley had been illegally sentenced for a Class C felony pursuant to § 32–5A–191(h), Ala.Code 1975, based on municipal convictions, and that the circuit court had erred in denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Here, because the trial court erred in applying Watson's prior municipal convictions toward the total number of convictions necessary to constitute the felony offenses of DUI under § 32–5A–191(h), Watson was illegally sentenced for two Class C felonies pursuant to § 32–5A–191(h). Therefore, the circuit court erred in denying the relief requested by Watson in his Rule 32 petition. The judgment is due to be reversed and the case remanded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
The State has asserted nonretroactivity in an attempt to preclude Terry...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hall v. State
...Thus, many claims under Rule 32.1(c) have been erroneously described as "jurisdictional."6 See, e.g. , Hawk , supra ; Watson v. State , 164 So.3d 622 (Ala.Crim.App.2014) ; Jones v. State , 104 So.3d 296 (Ala.Crim.App.2012) ; Skinner v. State , 987 So.2d 1172 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) ; and Simmon......
-
Bishop v. State
...Thus, many claims under Rule 32.1(c) have been erroneously described as ‘jurisdictional.’ See, e.g., Hawk, supra ; Watson v. State, 164 So. 3d 622 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014) ; Jones v. State, 104 So. 3d 296 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012) ; Skinner v. State, 987 So. 2d 1172 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) ; and ......
-
Lanier v. State
...sentence brought after the sentences had expired. See Hall v. State, 223 So.3d 977 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016), and Watson v. State, 164 So.3d 622 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014). However, the issue whether a trial court has jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence after the sentence has expired was n......
-
Watson v. State (Ex parte State), 1130838.
...deputy atty. gen., and P. David Bjurberg, asst. atty. gen., for petitioner.Submitted on petitioner's brief only.Prior report: Ala.Crim.App., 164 So.3d 622.OpinionBRYAN, Justice.WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION.MOORE, C.J., and BOLIN, MURDOCK, and MAIN, JJ., concur.BRYAN, J., concurs specially.BRYAN,......