Tupper v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Tupper v. State

764 So. 2d 1262, 1999 Ala. LEXIS 177, 1999 WL 380884

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 11, 1999

Docket1970839

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 764 So. 2d 1262 (Tupper v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tupper v. State, 764 So. 2d 1262, 1999 Ala. LEXIS 177, 1999 WL 380884 (Ala. 1999).

Pincite

Opinions

COOK, Justice.

The legal issue presented in this case is the same as that presented in Ex parte Parker, 740 So.2d 432 (Ala.1999). In Parker, we addressed the issue whether § 32-5A-191(h), Ala.Code 1975, states a substantive offense, of which the three prior convictions referred to in that subsection are elements, or whether the prior offenses referred to in that subsection are properly to be considered only for the purposes of determining whether upon conviction a defendant shall receive an enhanced sentence. This Court held that § 32-5A-191(h) is a sentence-enhancing provision and does not create a separate substantive offense.

The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed and the cause remanded, based on our holding in Parker.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, HOUSTON, KENNEDY, SEE, LYONS, and JOHNSTONE, JJ., concur. BROWN, J., recuses herself.*

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

COOK, Justice.

The legal issue presented in this case is the same as that presented in Ex parte Parker, 740 So.2d 432 (Ala.1999). In Parker, we addressed the issue whether § 32-5A-191(h), Ala.Code 1975, states a substantive offense, of which the three prior convictions referred to in that subsection are elements, or whether the prior offenses referred to in that subsection are properly to be considered only for the purposes of determining whether upon conviction a defendant shall receive an enhanced sentence. This Court held that § 32-5A-191(h) is a sentence-enhancing provision and does not create a separate substantive offense.

The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed and the cause remanded, based on our holding in Parker.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, HOUSTON, KENNEDY, SEE, LYONS, and JOHNSTONE, JJ., concur. BROWN, J., recuses herself.*

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

764 So. 2d 1262, 1999 Ala. LEXIS 177, 1999 WL 380884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tupper-v-state-ala-1999.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack