Case Title: Ex Parte Parks

Citation: 923 So. 2d 330

Docket Number: 1031714

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2005-06-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
923 So. 2d 330 (2005)
Ex parte Carlos Shanta PARKS.
(In re Carlos Shanta Parks
v.
State of Alabama).
1031714.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 24, 2005.
Daniel G. Hamm of Keith & Hamm, P.C., Montgomery, for petitioner.
*331 Troy King, atty. gen., Stephanie N. Morman, asst. atty. gen., and Kristi Deason Hagood, deputy atty. gen., for respondent.
HARWOOD, Justice.
On September 14, 2004, this Court granted defendant Carlos Shanta Parks's petition for a writ of certiorari to examine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals, in its unpublished memorandum affirming Parks's conviction of felony murder and resulting sentence of 25 years' imprisonment, Parks v. State, 923 So. 2d 328 (Ala. Crim.App.2004), properly held that Parks had not preserved his argument concerning the application of the felony-murder rule to his case. Judge Cobb dissented from that unpublished memorandum and issued an opinion. The unpublished memorandum in Parks summarizes the evidence as follows:
In her dissent, Judge Cobb presented the following statement of the essential facts:
923 So. 2d  at 329.
In its unpublished memorandum, the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that Parks had failed to preserve for appeal his argument that he had been improperly convicted of felony murder under § 13A-6-2(a)(3). The court stated:
Judge Cobb, in her dissent, addressed this conclusion as follows:
923 So. 2d  at 329.
Our review of the record shows that Parks's lawyer made a motion for a judgment of acquittal and argued, in pertinent part, as follows in support of that motion:
We agree with Judge Cobb that Parks's argument to the trial court that he could not properly be convicted of felony murder under the facts of the case because the victim was not killed by a participant in the robbery adequately notified the trial court of that argument so as to preserve it for appeal. The critical consideration for the preservation of error for appellate review is that the trial court be sufficiently informed of the basis of the defendant's argument. We have stated:
Ex parte Works, 640 So. 2d 1056, 1058 (Ala.1994)(holding that defense counsel's objection to an alleged flaw in the State's chain of custody was sufficiently specific to preserve the issue for appellate review).
More recently, in Ex parte McNish, 878 So. 2d 1199 (Ala.2003), this Court considered whether the defendant's argument that the State had not proven its case *334 beyond a reasonable doubt had preserved her challenge to the sufficiency of the State's evidence to support her convictions for first-degree theft and conspiracy to commit first-degree theft. We stated:
"843 So. 2d  at 749. Judge Cobb aptly addressed the same issue in her special writing concurring in the result in Thomas v. State, 777 So. 2d 317 (Ala. Crim.App.2000):
878 So. 2d  at 1200-01.
Thus, the critical consideration is whether Parks's argument was sufficient to put the trial court on notice of his argument that he could not be properly convicted under the felony-murder statute. Put another way, we consider whether Parks's argument in support of his motion for a judgment of acquittal provided the trial court with sufficient information from which to make an informed decision on the motion. We note further that although Parks did challenge his indictment as alleging a violation of the felony-murder statute, he did not specifically assert a material variance between the indictment and the evidence. Rather, he argued in his motion for a judgment of acquittal that the facts in his case did not support a conviction under the crime charged in the indictment, i.e., felony murder, because the victim was killed by an individual who was not a "participant" in the robbery. This is the substance of his argument on appeal. We therefore conclude that Parks did preserve his argument for appellate review, and the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals in its unpublished memorandum holding to the contrary is due to be reversed. The judgment of that court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for the Court of Criminal Appeals to consider Parks's argument on the merits.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.[*]
NABERS, C.J., and SEE, LYONS, WOODALL, STUART, SMITH, BOLIN, and PARKER, JJ., concur.
[*]  Note from the reporter of decisions: On August 12, 2005, on remand from the Alabama Supreme Court, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, without opinion. On September 2, 2005, that court denied rehearing, without opinion.