Ex Parte Boyd

796 So. 2d 1092, 2001 WL 336316
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedApril 6, 2001
Docket1990740
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 796 So. 2d 1092 (Ex Parte Boyd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ex Parte Boyd, 796 So. 2d 1092, 2001 WL 336316 (Ala. 2001).

Opinion

Lee Boyd was indicted for felony driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of § 32-5A-191(h), Ala. Code 1975. Two of the three prior convictions relied upon by the State to indict Boyd were more than five years old. Boyd filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that Act No. 97-556, 1997 Ala. Acts 985, unconstitutionally removed the phrase "within a five-year period" from § 32-5A-191(h). The circuit court found that Act No. 97-556 does not violate Ala. Const. 1901, §45. Therefore, the court denied Boyd's motion to dismiss, and he pled guilty, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the circuit court. Boyd petitioned this Court for certiorari review. We granted his petition.

Boyd argues that the title of Act No. 97-556 begins with a general statement that the proposed purpose of the act is to make certain amendments to § 32-5A-191. The Act then expressly indexes four particular amendments to the statute dealing with the collection and disbursement of fines. The title does not mention the elimination of the five-year limitation period contained within § 32-5A-191(g) and (h). Boyd argues that because the title does not state a general purpose of amending § 32-5A-191, but instead lists particular proposed amendments to § 32-5A-191, the inclusion, within the body of the act, of changes regarding the elimination of the five year limitation period, violates § 45 of the Constitution.

Section 45 states:

"The style of the laws of this state shall be: `Be it enacted by the legislature of Alabama,' which need not be repeated, but the act shall be divided into sections for convenience, according to substance, and the sections designated merely by figures. Each law shall contain but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except general appropriation bills, general revenue bills, and bills adopting a code, digest, or revision of statutes; and no law shall be *Page 1094 revived, amended, or the provisions thereof extended or conferred, by reference to its title only; but so much thereof as is revived, amended, extended, or conferred, shall be re-enacted and published at length."

(Emphasis added.)

In Bagby Elevator Electric Co. v. McBride, this Court stated the purpose of the provision:

"`The object of the constitutional provision has been held to be three fold, first, to fairly apprise the people, through such publication of legislative proceedings as is usually made, of the subjects of legislation that are being considered, and in order that they may have the opportunity of being heard thereon, by petition or otherwise, if they shall so desire; second, truly to inform members of the legislature who are to vote upon the bill, what the subject of it is so that they may not perform that duty, deceived or ignorant of what they are doing; and third, to prevent the practice of embracing in one bill several distinct matters, none of which, perhaps could singly obtain the assent of the legislature, and then procuring its passage by a combination of the minorities in favor of each of the measures, into a majority that will adopt them all. Lindsay v. United States Savings Loan Ass'n, 120 Ala. 156, 24 So. 171, 42 L.R.A. 783; Walker v. Griffith, 60 Ala. 361.'"

292 Ala. 191, 194, 291 So.2d 306, 308 (1974) (quoting State v. Hester,260 Ala. 566, 72 So.2d 61 (1954)). See also Knight v. West AlabamaEnvtl. Improvement Auth., 287 Ala. 15, 246 So.2d 903 (1971); Opinion ofthe Justices No. 215, 294 Ala. 555, 319 So.2d 682 (1975).

When deciding whether an act violates § 45, this Court

"`is committed to the principle that this requirement as to clear expression of the subject of a bill in the title is not to be exactingly enforced in such a manner and to cripple legislation, or is it to be enforced with hypercritical exactness, but is to be accorded a liberal interpretation.'"

Knight, 287 Ala. at 22, 246 So.2d at 908, quoting Opinion of theJustices No. 174, 275 Ala. 254, 257, 154 So.2d 12, 15 (1963).

It is well established that this Court should be very reluctant to hold any act unconstitutional.

"Another guiding principle of particular importance is that courts seek to sustain, not strike down, the enactments of a coordinate department of government. Every legislative act is presumed to be constitutional and every intendment is in favor of its validity."

Wilkins v. Woolf, 281 Ala. 693, 697, 208 So.2d 74, 78 (1968) (overruled on other grounds, Tanner v. Tuscaloosa County Comm'n, 594 So.2d 1207 (Ala. 1992)).

The title to the Act sub judice states:

"AN ACT

"To amend Section 32-5A-191 of the Code of Alabama 1975, as last amended by Act No. 96-705, S. 182, 1996 Regular Session, relating to driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs and fines on convictions therefor, to further provide for the $100 fine for distribution to the Impaired Drivers Trust Fund, after administrative costs; to further provide for the collection and distribution process of certain funds to the Impaired Drivers Trust Fund presently specified in Section 32-5A-191.1 and to repeal Section 32-5A-191.1, Code of Alabama 1975, relating to the fines designated for *Page 1095 the Impaired Drivers Trust Fund; and to provide for a delayed effective date."

The body of Act No. 97-556 states:

"Be It Enacted by the Legislature of Alabama:

"Section 1. Section 32-5A-191 of the code of Alabama 1975, as amended by Act No. 96-705, S. 182 of the 1996 Regular Session, is amended to read as follows:

"`§ 32-5A-191.

"`(a) A person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle while:

"`(1) There is 0.08 percent or more by weight of alcohol in his or her blood;

"`(2) Under the influence of alcohol;

"`(3) Under the influence of a controlled substance to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely driving;

"`(4) Under the combined influence of alcohol and a controlled substance to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely driving; or

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Solomon
274 So. 3d 1017 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2018)
Pruitt v. State
272 So. 3d 732 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2018)
Ex parte State
223 So. 3d 954 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2016)
Vann v. State
143 So. 3d 850 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2013)
State v. Turner
96 So. 3d 876 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2011)
Benson W. Peak v. City of Tuscaloosa.
73 So. 3d 5 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2011)
Northington v. Alabama Department of Conservation & Natural Resources
33 So. 3d 560 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2009)
Hankins v. State
989 So. 2d 610 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2007)
Knoblett v. Alabama Board of Massage Therapy
963 So. 2d 640 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 2007)
City of Montgomery v. Zgouvas
953 So. 2d 434 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2006)
WATER AND SEWER COM'RS OF MOBILE v. Hunter
956 So. 2d 403 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2006)
McInnish v. Riley
925 So. 2d 174 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2005)
Hyshaw v. State
893 So. 2d 1239 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2003)
Ex parte D.W.
835 So. 2d 186 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
796 So. 2d 1092, 2001 WL 336316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-boyd-ala-2001.