White v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

White v. State

616 So. 2d 399, 1993 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 292, 1993 WL 85968

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedMarch 26, 1993

DocketCR 92-44

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 616 So. 2d 399 (White 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

White v. State, 616 So. 2d 399, 1993 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 292, 1993 WL 85968 (Ala. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

The appellant, Bobby Wayne White, pleaded guilty and was convicted of burglary in the second degree. He was sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual felony offender. The appellant represents himself on this appeal.

The record affirmatively shows that the appellant was not advised of the correct minimum and maximum range of punishment prior to entering his guilty plea. The range of punishment was incorrectly stated in both the "explanation of rights and plea of guilt" form and by the trial court during the guilty plea colloquy. The attorney general candidly acknowledges this error.

"[A] defendant must be informed of the maximum and minimum possible sentences as an absolute constitutional prerequisite to the acceptance of a guilty plea. . . . If the defendant has prior felony convictions, he must be advised of the proper sentence to which he is subject by virtue of Alabama Code 1975, § 13A-5-9, the Habitual Felony Offender Act." Ex parte Rivers,597 So.2d 1308, 1309 (Ala. 1991). Because the appellant was not informed of the correct range of punishment, "his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently given."Rivers, 597 So.2d at 1310.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All Judges concur. *Page 400

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

The appellant, Bobby Wayne White, pleaded guilty and was convicted of burglary in the second degree. He was sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual felony offender. The appellant represents himself on this appeal.

The record affirmatively shows that the appellant was not advised of the correct minimum and maximum range of punishment prior to entering his guilty plea. The range of punishment was incorrectly stated in both the "explanation of rights and plea of guilt" form and by the trial court during the guilty plea colloquy. The attorney general candidly acknowledges this error.

"[A] defendant must be informed of the maximum and minimum possible sentences as an absolute constitutional prerequisite to the acceptance of a guilty plea. . . . If the defendant has prior felony convictions, he must be advised of the proper sentence to which he is subject by virtue of Alabama Code 1975, § 13A-5-9, the Habitual Felony Offender Act." Ex parte Rivers,597 So.2d 1308, 1309 (Ala. 1991). Because the appellant was not informed of the correct range of punishment, "his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently given."Rivers, 597 So.2d at 1310.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All Judges concur. *Page 400

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

616 So. 2d 399, 1993 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 292, 1993 WL 85968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-state-alacrimapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack