White v. State
Decision Date | 29 August 2008 |
Docket Number | CR-07-0369. |
Citation | 4 So.3d 1208 |
Parties | Reginald D'Andre WHITE v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
James O. Standridge, Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
Troy King, atty. gen., and James B. Prude, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
Reginald D'Andre White was indicted in case no. CC-05-1060 for one count of trafficking in cocaine, a violation of § 13A-12-231(2), Ala.Code 1975, and in case no. CC-05-1751 for two counts of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance, violations of § 13A-12-211, Ala.Code 1975, and for three counts of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, violations of § 13A-12-212(a)(1), Ala.Code 1975. On December 7, 2005, pursuant to an "open-ended" plea agreement with the State, White pleaded guilty to the trafficking charge and to the two distribution charges. (R. 13.) In accordance with the plea agreement, White also pledged his assistance and/or testimony in the prosecution of other drug-related cases and promised to avoid incurring any new charges. In exchange, the three possession charges were dismissed and White's sentencing was postponed.
On October 17, 2006, White was arrested and charged with a new unrelated offense. Thereafter, the trial court set White's sentencing hearing on the pending drug charges for September 6, 2007. On September 5, 2007, White filed a motion to withdraw his previous guilty pleas to those offenses,1 which was denied by the trial court. White was ultimately sentenced, as an habitual offender, to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the trafficking conviction and to life imprisonment for each of the two distribution convictions.2 The trial court ordered the sentences for the two distribution convictions to run concurrently with each other, but consecutively to the sentence for the trafficking conviction.
White's sole contention on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his pleas. Specifically, he argues that his guilty pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently given because, he says, the trial court did not properly advise him of the applicable minimum and maximum sentencing ranges for the charges to which he pleaded guilty. He maintains that "the Ireland form filled out by [White's plea] counsel has an improper range of punishment circled for [the trafficking] charge and no range of punishment circled for the [distribution] charge[s]." (White's brief at p. 9.)
The record reflects that, during the guilty-plea colloquy, the following occurred:
(R. 4-5; emphasis added). In addition, both White and his appointed counsel participated in the following exchange, which subsequently occurred during the colloquy:
(R. 8-9.) The trial court then advised White as to the appropriate fines and/or fees applicable to each charge to which White was pleading guilty and also discussed the possibility of reducing the charges against White if he adequately cooperated with law enforcement. The trial court further reminded White that, if he failed to appear at sentencing, it could "sentence [him] to the maximum amount under both cases under each count that [White was] pleading to," which White affirmatively indicated on the record that he understood. (R. 13.) During the discussion of White's prior felonies for sentencing purposes, the trial court again noted that White "said he's already been over the range of punishment." (R. 16.)
The record also contains two standard Ireland forms signed by White, his counsel, and the trial court—one for the trafficking charge and one for the two distribution charges. The standard Ireland form includes preprinted information setting out the basic sentencing ranges for all classes of felonies, as well as the various sentencing ranges for all classes of felonies under the Habitual Felony Offender Act ("the HFOA") based on the number and class of the prior convictions. The Ireland form for the distribution charges in this case properly designated both distribution offenses as Class B felonies, but did not specifically designate (such as with a circle or checkmark) which sentencing range was applicable to the charges. Nonetheless, the preprinted information on the form included the proper sentencing range upon conviction of a Class B felony for a defendant with three or more prior felony convictions—20 years' imprisonment to life imprisonment. The Ireland form for the trafficking conviction properly designated trafficking as a Class A felony, and the sentencing range for a Class A felony with three or more prior convictions, one or more of which was a Class A felony, is listed as mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, and is specifically designated on the form by a circle.
Riley v. State, 892 So.2d 471, 474-75 (Ala. Crim.App.2004).
Rule 14.4, Ala.R.Crim.P., provides, in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hall v. State
...... Felony Offender Act, the Act must be invoked prior to the defendant's original sentencing.’), and the State must not only assert, but must properly prove the enhancements in §§ 13A–12–250 and 13A–12–270 before they are legally applicable to a sentence, 223 So.3d 993 see, e.g., White v. State , 4 So.3d 1208 (Ala.Crim.App.2008) (refusing to remand for imposition of the sentence enhancements in §§ 13A–12–250 and 13A–12–270 where, although the enhancements were charged in the indictment, the State did not include any facts in the factual basis for the pleas to support ......
-
Lane v. State
......3 This interpretation is consistent with Rule 14.4, Ala. R.Crim. P., the rule governing the acceptance of a guilty plea. We have consistently held that a defendant must be apprised of the correct minimum and maximum sentence before pleading guilty. See White v. State, 4 So.3d 1208 (Ala.Crim.App.2008); Gordon v. State, 692 So.2d 869 (Ala.Crim.App.1996). This right is incorporated into Rule 14.4(a)(1)(ii), Ala. R.Crim. P., which states that before pleading guilty the defendant must be advised of “[t]he mandatory minimum penalty, if any, and the ......
-
Andrews v. State
......State, 703 So.2d 1023, 1026 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997)." White v. State, 4 So.3d 1208, 1213 (Ala.Crim.App.2008). "`"[T]he trial court is not bound to accept an agreement between the defense and prosecution." Ex parte Yarber, 437 So.2d 1330, 1336 (Ala. 1983). However, "`[w]hen the trial judge decides not to carry out an agreement reached between ......
-
Waters v. State
......State, 703 So.2d 1023, 1026 (Ala.Crim.App.1997).’ White v. State, 4 So.3d 1208, 1213 (Ala.Crim.App.2008).”Andrews v. State, 12 So.3d 728, 730 (Ala.Crim.App.2009).At the November 19, 2012, evidentiary hearing, the circuit court allowed Waters, through his appointed counsel, to present evidence to support his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. At the ......