M.A.T. v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

M.A.T. v. State

574 So. 2d 1016, 1990 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1683, 1990 WL 210533

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedOctober 26, 1990

DocketCR 89-786

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 574 So. 2d 1016 (M.A.T. 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

M.A.T. v. State, 574 So. 2d 1016, 1990 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1683, 1990 WL 210533 (Ala. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinions

BOWEN, Judge.

M.A.T.¹ pleaded guilty to the offense of assault in the third degree and was treated as a youthful offender. His sentence of three years’ imprisonment was “split”² with a period of imprisonment of 180 days, successful completion of prison “boot camp,”³ and five years’ supervised probation. He raises two issues on this appeal from that conviction.

I.

The sentence imposed on the defendant exceeded the jurisdiction of the trial court. The defendant was “convicted” [1017]*1017of assault in the third degree under Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-6-22. This offense is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by “imprisonment in the county jail or to hard labor for the county” for “not more than one year.” § 13A-5-7(a)(1). The maximum period of probation for a misdemean- or is two years. § 15-22-54(a). These provisions are applicable to a person adjudged a youthful offender. See § 15-19-6(d). This error is candidly admitted by the Attorney General. Furthermore, we find no statute authorizing a trial court to sentence a youthful offender adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor to “boot camp” under the Department of Corrections.

Therefore, this cause is remanded to the trial court with directions that within 30 days of the date of this opinion, the original sentence be set aside and the defendant sentenced within the authorized range of punishment allowed by law.

II.

The defendant argues that Ala. Code 1975, § 15-12-25, is unconstitutional because it permits the trial court to condition probation upon reimbursement by an indigent defendant of the fees and expenses of appointed counsel and permits the incarceration of an indigent defendant for a failure to reimburse. This issue is moot because the defendant’s sentence has been set aside in Part I of this opinion. Furthermore, this issue was not presented to the trial court and has not been properly preserved for appellate review.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

All judges concur.

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

BOWEN, Judge.

M.A.T.¹ pleaded guilty to the offense of assault in the third degree and was treated as a youthful offender. His sentence of three years’ imprisonment was “split”² with a period of imprisonment of 180 days, successful completion of prison “boot camp,”³ and five years’ supervised probation. He raises two issues on this appeal from that conviction.

I.

The sentence imposed on the defendant exceeded the jurisdiction of the trial court. The defendant was “convicted” [1017]*1017of assault in the third degree under Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-6-22. This offense is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by “imprisonment in the county jail or to hard labor for the county” for “not more than one year.” § 13A-5-7(a)(1). The maximum period of probation for a misdemean- or is two years. § 15-22-54(a). These provisions are applicable to a person adjudged a youthful offender. See § 15-19-6(d). This error is candidly admitted by the Attorney General. Furthermore, we find no statute authorizing a trial court to sentence a youthful offender adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor to “boot camp” under the Department of Corrections.

Therefore, this cause is remanded to the trial court with directions that within 30 days of the date of this opinion, the original sentence be set aside and the defendant sentenced within the authorized range of punishment allowed by law.

II.

The defendant argues that Ala. Code 1975, § 15-12-25, is unconstitutional because it permits the trial court to condition probation upon reimbursement by an indigent defendant of the fees and expenses of appointed counsel and permits the incarceration of an indigent defendant for a failure to reimburse. This issue is moot because the defendant’s sentence has been set aside in Part I of this opinion. Furthermore, this issue was not presented to the trial court and has not been properly preserved for appellate review.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

All judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

574 So. 2d 1016, 1990 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1683, 1990 WL 210533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mat-v-state-alacrimapp-1990.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack