Rump v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Rump v. State

832 So. 2d 667, 2001 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 168, 2001 WL 996297

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedAugust 31, 2001

DocketCR-00-0873

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 832 So. 2d 667 (Rump 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

Rump v. State, 832 So. 2d 667, 2001 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 168, 2001 WL 996297 (Ala. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAW, Judge.

In a separate unpublished memorandum released today, we are affirming Jimmy Lewis Rump’s convictions for disorderly conduct, see § 13A-11-7, Ala.Code 1975, and for resisting arrest, see § 13A-10-41, Ala.Code 1975. However, because we find that Rump’s one-year sentence for each of those convictions exceeds the maximum authorized by law, we must remand this cause to the trial court for resentencing.

“Matters ■ concerning unauthorized sentences are jurisdictional,” Hunt v. State, 659 So.2d 998, 999 (Ala.Crim.App.1994); therefore, we may take notice of an illegal sentence even though Rump did not raise the issue in the trial court or in his brief on appeal. See, e.g., Pender v. State, 740 So.2d 482 (Ala.Crim.App.1999). Disorderly conduct is a Class C misdemeanor, see § 13A-ll-7(b), Ala.Code 1975, punishable by a term of imprisonment of “not more than three months,” § 13A-5-7(a)(3), Ala.Code 1975; resisting arrest is a Class B misdemeanor, see § 13A-10-41(b), Ala. Code 1975, punishable by a term of imprisonment of “not more than six months,” § 13A-5-7(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975. Because Rump was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment for the disorderly conduct conviction and to one year’s imprisonment for the resisting-arrest conviction, his sentences exceed the maximum authorized by law and are, therefore, void. See, e.g., Ferguson v. State, 565 So.2d 1172, 1173 (Ala.Crim.App.1990) (“When the court imposes a sentence in excess of that authorized by statute, it exceeds its jurisdiction, and the sentence is consequently void.”).

Accordingly, we remand this cause to the trial court with directions for that court to resentence Rump on his convictions for disorderly conduct and for resisting arrest in accordance with § 13A-5-7, Ala.Code 1975. Due return should be filed with this Court no later than 28 days from the date of this opinion.

AFFIRMED BY MEMORANDUM AS TO CONVICTIONS

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

SHAW, Judge.

In a separate unpublished memorandum released today, we are affirming Jimmy Lewis Rump’s convictions for disorderly conduct, see § 13A-11-7, Ala.Code 1975, and for resisting arrest, see § 13A-10-41, Ala.Code 1975. However, because we find that Rump’s one-year sentence for each of those convictions exceeds the maximum authorized by law, we must remand this cause to the trial court for resentencing.

“Matters ■ concerning unauthorized sentences are jurisdictional,” Hunt v. State, 659 So.2d 998, 999 (Ala.Crim.App.1994); therefore, we may take notice of an illegal sentence even though Rump did not raise the issue in the trial court or in his brief on appeal. See, e.g., Pender v. State, 740 So.2d 482 (Ala.Crim.App.1999). Disorderly conduct is a Class C misdemeanor, see § 13A-ll-7(b), Ala.Code 1975, punishable by a term of imprisonment of “not more than three months,” § 13A-5-7(a)(3), Ala.Code 1975; resisting arrest is a Class B misdemeanor, see § 13A-10-41(b), Ala. Code 1975, punishable by a term of imprisonment of “not more than six months,” § 13A-5-7(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975. Because Rump was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment for the disorderly conduct conviction and to one year’s imprisonment for the resisting-arrest conviction, his sentences exceed the maximum authorized by law and are, therefore, void. See, e.g., Ferguson v. State, 565 So.2d 1172, 1173 (Ala.Crim.App.1990) (“When the court imposes a sentence in excess of that authorized by statute, it exceeds its jurisdiction, and the sentence is consequently void.”).

Accordingly, we remand this cause to the trial court with directions for that court to resentence Rump on his convictions for disorderly conduct and for resisting arrest in accordance with § 13A-5-7, Ala.Code 1975. Due return should be filed with this Court no later than 28 days from the date of this opinion.

AFFIRMED BY MEMORANDUM AS TO CONVICTIONS

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

832 So. 2d 667, 2001 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 168, 2001 WL 996297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rump-v-state-alacrimapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack