Lancaster DeShawn Lewis v. State of Alabama

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
• Decided: February 10, 2023
• Docket: CR-2022-0665
• Status: Published

Opinion

Rel: February 10, 2023

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals OCTOBER TERM, 2022-2023 _________________________

CR-2022-0665 _________________________

Lancaster DeShawn Lewis

v.

State of Alabama

Appeal from Morgan Circuit Court (CC-15-798)

WINDOM, Presiding Judge.

AFFIRMED BY UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM.

Kellum and Cole, JJ., concur. Minor, J., concurs in part and

dissents in part, with opinion, which McCool, J., joins. CR-2022-0665

MINOR, Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

A jury convicted Lancaster DeShawn Lewis of trafficking in a

synthetic controlled substance, see § 13A-12-231(12)(a), Ala. Code 1975.

The circuit court sentenced Lewis as a habitual felony offender with two

prior convictions—including a conviction for possession of cocaine—to life

in prison.

The Drug Demand Reduction Assessment Act, § 13A-12-281, Ala.

Code 1975, provides that every person convicted of a violation of an

offense defined in §§ 13A-12-202, -203, -204, -211, -212, -213, -215, or -

231, Ala. Code 1975, "shall be assessed for each offense an additional

penalty fixed at one thousand dollars ($1,000) for a first offense and two

thousand dollars ($2,000) for a second or subsequent offense." The record

on appeal shows that the circuit court imposed a $1,000 drug-demand-

reduction assessment for Lewis's conviction rather than the $2,000

assessment required because Lewis had a prior conviction for a drug

offense.

In Siercks v. State, 154 So. 3d 1085 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013), this

Court held that the drug-demand-reduction assessment is "not

waivable," describing it as "mandatory and jurisdictional." This Court in

2 CR-2022-0665

Hall v. State, 223 So. 3d 977, 982 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016), addressed a

petitioner's claim in a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition alleging that his

sentence was illegal because the circuit court had not imposed the drug-

demand-reduction assessment. In response, the State asserted that the

claim was precluded under Rule 32.2(a) because it could have been raised

at trial or on appeal but was not. 223 So. 3d at 979. This Court agreed

with the State and overruled Siercks "[t]o the extent that" Siercks held

that such a claim (one alleging that the sentencing court did not impose

the demand-reduction assessment) was not "subject to the grounds of

preclusion set forth in Rule 32.2, Ala. R. Crim. P." Id. at 982. The per

curiam opinion1 reasoned that “[b]ecause the demand-reduction

assessment is a 'mandatory' fine that is capable of being waived," the

logic in Siercks was faulty in describing the fine as "jurisdictional." Id.

In a separate writing, Judge Joiner "explain[ed] [his] basis for"

concurring in the per curiam opinion in Hall: "Stated simply, the Court's

decision today overrules [Siercks] … only to the extent that [it held] that

a circuit court's failure to impose a fine pursuant to the Demand

Reduction Assessment Act is a 'jurisdictional' claim in the context of a

1Two judges dissented from the per curiam opinion in Hall. 3 CR-2022-0665

Rule 32[, Ala. R. Crim. P.,] proceeding." 223 So. 3d at 982 (Joiner, J.,

concurring specially). Judge Joiner stated: "To be clear, this Court has

not overruled Siercks with regard to claims on direct appeal alleging that

the circuit court failed to impose a demand-reduction assessment." 223

So. 3d at 982 n.4.

I agree with the reasoning of the main opinion in Hall that the

demand-reduction assessment is not a "jurisdictional" issue because it

may be waived in some cases. But Lewis's case involves a direct appeal

of his conviction and sentence, not an appeal from a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim.

P., proceeding. The circuit court's imposition of a $1,000 assessment

shows that the assessment has not been waived. Because the record

shows that the circuit court imposed an incorrect assessment, I would

remand this case for the circuit court to impose the correct assessment.

Thus, I dissent from that part of the Court's judgment affirming the

circuit court's imposition of a drug-demand-reduction assessment in the

wrong amount. I concur in the rest of the Court's judgment.

McCool, J., concurs.