Fairbanks v. State

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Fairbanks v. State

449 So. 2d 249, 1984 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 4863

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedApril 24, 1984

Docket8 Div. 26-A

StatusPublished

This text of 449 So. 2d 249 (Fairbanks v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fairbanks v. State, 449 So. 2d 249, 1984 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 4863 (Ala. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

TYSON, Judge.

Tommy Ray Fairbanks was indicted for trafficking in cannabis in violation of § 20-2-80, Code of Alabama 1975. The appellant entered a plea of guilty and the trial judge sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary and fined him $25,000.

I

The sole issue which the appellant raises on appeal is that the sentencing scheme in §.20-2-80 and § 20-2-81, Code of Alabama 1975 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We do not agree with this appellant since this issue has previously been decided adversely to the appellant by this court in Williams v. State, 420 So.2d 91 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Dickerson v. State, 414 So.2d 998 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); and Wheatt v. State, 410 So.2d 479 (Ala.Cr. App.1982).

For the reasons stated, this cause is hereby affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All the Judges concur.

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

TYSON, Judge.

Tommy Ray Fairbanks was indicted for trafficking in cannabis in violation of § 20-2-80, Code of Alabama 1975. The appellant entered a plea of guilty and the trial judge sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary and fined him $25,000.

I

The sole issue which the appellant raises on appeal is that the sentencing scheme in §.20-2-80 and § 20-2-81, Code of Alabama 1975 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We do not agree with this appellant since this issue has previously been decided adversely to the appellant by this court in Williams v. State, 420 So.2d 91 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Dickerson v. State, 414 So.2d 998 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); and Wheatt v. State, 410 So.2d 479 (Ala.Cr. App.1982).

For the reasons stated, this cause is hereby affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

449 So. 2d 249, 1984 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 4863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fairbanks-v-state-alacivapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack