From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ex Parte Brannon

Supreme Court of Alabama
Feb 10, 1989
547 So. 2d 68 (Ala. 1989)

Summary

In Ex parte Brannon, 547 So.2d 68, 68 (Ala.1989), a case on direct appeal from Brannon's guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance, Justice Maddox, writing for a unanimous Alabama Supreme Court, explained that, "when a sentence is clearly illegal or is clearly not authorized by statute, the defendant does not need to object at the trial level in order to preserve the issue for appellate review.

Summary of this case from Hall v. State

Opinion

87-843.

February 10, 1989.

The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, 524 So.2d 387.

Douglas M. Bates, Dothan, for petitioner.

Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Mary Ellen Forehand, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.


Gilbert Brannon pleaded guilty to possession of controlled substances. At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor produced certified copies of three prior felony convictions (none of which was drug-related). Brannon was then sentenced under Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-5-9 (hereinafter the "Habitual Felony Offender Act"). The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, without opinion. 524 So.2d 387. We granted certiorari to decide whether the sentencing of Brannon under the Habitual Felony Offender Act conflicts with our decision in Ex parte Chambers, 522 So.2d 313 (Ala. 1987). We find that it does, and hold that Brannon was incorrectly sentenced; therefore, we remand the cause for a new sentencing proceeding.

Reporter's note: The rehearing denial was incorrectly reported at 531 So.2d 63, with the docket number 4 Div. 854; the correct docket number in the Court of Criminal Appeals was 4 Div. 853.

The State contends that we should not reach the issue of the propriety of Brannon's sentence because Brannon did not object to his being sentenced under the Habitual Felony Offender Act. It is true that Brannon did not object, but we hold that an objection was unnecessary in this case. Brannon's sentencing occurred several months before this Court decided Chambers, so Brannon's counsel would not have known of that decision and its effect on sentencing under the Habitual Felony Offender Act; however, when a sentence is clearly illegal or is clearly not authorized by statute, the defendant does not need to object at the trial level in order to preserve that issue for appellate review. See Bartone v. United States, 375 U.S. 52, 84 S.Ct. 21, 11 L.Ed.2d 11 (1963). Indeed, the illegality of a defendant's sentence is a ground specified in Rule 20, Ala. R. Crim. P., for a collateral post-conviction remedy.

In Chambers, the defendant was convicted of a drug-related offense and had a prior drug-related offense; he was sentenced under the Habitual Felony Offender Act. This Court held:

"The Habitual Felony Offender Act, with its punishment enhancement provisions, is a penal statute, and must be strictly construed, especially in regard to its applicability to felony offenses outside the Criminal Code. A careful reading of the pertinent provisions of Title 13A, Chapter 5, along with the commentary thereto, makes it quite obvious that the legislature did not intend the Habitual Felony Offender Act to apply to felony drug offenses."

522 So.2d at 316.

The State contends that the present case is not controlled by Chambers because Chambers's prior offense was drug-related and Brannon's prior offenses were not drug-related. This distinction makes no difference; Chambers makes it clear that "defendants convicted [under the Controlled Substances Act] must be sentenced according to its provisions, not the sentencing provisions of Title 13A." 522 So.2d at 316 (emphasis in original). It is anomalous that a defendant convicted of a drug-related crime will have his sentence enhanced if he has prior drug-related convictions but will not have his conviction enhanced if he has prior non-drug-related convictions, but the clear wording of the relevant statutes will not permit any other result. We note that the Controlled Substances Act has been amended by Acts of Alabama 1987, No. 87-603, the "Drug Crimes Amendments Act of 1987." This act repealed § 20-2-70, the recidivist provision within the Controlled Substances Act, for conduct occurring after the effective date of the act, and it made drug-related crimes subject to the Habitual Felony Offender Act. The effective date of this act was October 21, 1987. Since Brannon's conduct that led to this conviction occurred prior to October 21, 1987, Act No. 87-603 is not applicable to him, and his sentencing is controlled by Chambers.

Based on the foregoing, this cause is remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals with directions to remand the cause to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

HORNSBY, C.J., and JONES, ALMON, SHORES, ADAMS, HOUSTON, STEAGALL and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ex Parte Brannon

Supreme Court of Alabama
Feb 10, 1989
547 So. 2d 68 (Ala. 1989)

In Ex parte Brannon, 547 So.2d 68, 68 (Ala.1989), a case on direct appeal from Brannon's guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance, Justice Maddox, writing for a unanimous Alabama Supreme Court, explained that, "when a sentence is clearly illegal or is clearly not authorized by statute, the defendant does not need to object at the trial level in order to preserve the issue for appellate review.

Summary of this case from Hall v. State

In Ex parte Brannon, 547 So.2d 68 (Ala. 1989), this court held that "when a sentence is clearly illegal or is clearly not authorized by statute, the defendant does not need to object at the trial level in order to preserve that issue for appellate review."

Summary of this case from Hunt v. State

In Brannon, the defendant pleaded guilty to a drug offense and, when the State produced evidence of three prior convictions, was sentenced under the HFOA.

Summary of this case from Nichols v. State

In Ex parte Brannon, 547 So.2d 68 (Ala. 1989), our Supreme Court held that "when a sentence is clearly illegal, or is clearly not authorized by statute, the defendant does not need to object at the trial level in order to preserve that issue for appellate review."

Summary of this case from Falkner v. State

In Ex parte Brannon, 547 So.2d 68, 68 (Ala. 1989), the Alabama Supreme Court held that "when a sentence is clearly illegal or is clearly not authorized by statute, the defendant does not need to object at the trial level in order to preserve that issue for appellate review.

Summary of this case from Harris v. State
Case details for

Ex Parte Brannon

Case Details

Full title:Ex parte Gilbert W. BRANNON. (Re Gilbert Brannon v. State of Alabama)

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Feb 10, 1989

Citations

547 So. 2d 68 (Ala. 1989)

Citing Cases

Hall v. State

Rather than randomly ignoring it, our caselaw should reflect that difference. In Ex parte Brannon , 547 So.2d…

Bishop v. State

"those earlier cases ... establish[ ] only that an unauthorized-sentence claim is not subject to the…