Liles v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Liles v. State

349 So. 2d 140, 1977 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1328

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedAugust 16, 1977

Docket7 Div. 537

StatusPublished

This text of 349 So. 2d 140 (Liles v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Liles v. State, 349 So. 2d 140, 1977 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1328 (Ala. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

DeCARLO, Judge.

This is an appeal from the judgments of conviction resulting from three guilty pleas.

The cases involved were: (1) sale of a controlled substance, “phencyclidine (PCP),” circuit court case number 75-CR-104; (2) possession of a controlled substance, “diazempam,” circuit court case number 76-CR-202; and (3) possession of marijuana for personal use, circuit court case number 9938.

In the felony cases the appellant received two four-year concurrent sentences. In the case involving the possession of marijuana for his personal use he received a six months’ sentence to run concurrently with the two four-year concurrent sentences.

Our examination of the record revealed that during the court’s explanation of the appellant’s constitutional rights, concerning the felony charges and their punishment, the court stated that the minimum punishment was imprisonment for two years and the maximum was imprisonment for twenty years. According to the section of the statute under which Liles was indicted, T. 22, § 258(47), Code of Alabama 1940, Recompiled 1958, 1973 Cum. Supp. To Vol. Six, a violation is punishable by imprisonment for not less than two nor more than fifteen years.

In Moore v. State, 54 Ala.App. 463, 309 So.2d 500, this court stated:

“ . . . that there was error in incorrectly informing defendant of the maximum punishment . . . [Emphasis added.]

The court also explained:

“ . . .We cannot say that defendant’s failure to know that the maximum sentence that could be imposed upon him was fifteen years, instead of twenty years as incorrectly informed, had no influence upon his decision to withdraw his plea of not guilty.”

In view of the foregoing we are compelled to reverse the judgment of conviction in circuit court case number 75-CR-104, and circuit court case number 76-CR-202. However, in the case involving the possession of marijuana for his personal use, circuit court case number 9938, we affirm, the constitutional requisites for a voluntary plea having been shown.

REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART.

All the Judges concur.

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

DeCARLO, Judge.

This is an appeal from the judgments of conviction resulting from three guilty pleas.

The cases involved were: (1) sale of a controlled substance, “phencyclidine (PCP),” circuit court case number 75-CR-104; (2) possession of a controlled substance, “diazempam,” circuit court case number 76-CR-202; and (3) possession of marijuana for personal use, circuit court case number 9938.

In the felony cases the appellant received two four-year concurrent sentences. In the case involving the possession of marijuana for his personal use he received a six months’ sentence to run concurrently with the two four-year concurrent sentences.

Our examination of the record revealed that during the court’s explanation of the appellant’s constitutional rights, concerning the felony charges and their punishment, the court stated that the minimum punishment was imprisonment for two years and the maximum was imprisonment for twenty years. According to the section of the statute under which Liles was indicted, T. 22, § 258(47), Code of Alabama 1940, Recompiled 1958, 1973 Cum. Supp. To Vol. Six, a violation is punishable by imprisonment for not less than two nor more than fifteen years.

In Moore v. State, 54 Ala.App. 463, 309 So.2d 500, this court stated:

“ . . . that there was error in incorrectly informing defendant of the maximum punishment . . . [Emphasis added.]

The court also explained:

“ . . .We cannot say that defendant’s failure to know that the maximum sentence that could be imposed upon him was fifteen years, instead of twenty years as incorrectly informed, had no influence upon his decision to withdraw his plea of not guilty.”

In view of the foregoing we are compelled to reverse the judgment of conviction in circuit court case number 75-CR-104, and circuit court case number 76-CR-202. However, in the case involving the possession of marijuana for his personal use, circuit court case number 9938, we affirm, the constitutional requisites for a voluntary plea having been shown.

REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

349 So. 2d 140, 1977 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liles-v-state-alacrimapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack