Case Title: Ex Parte Sapp

Citation: 497 So. 2d 550

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1986-09-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
497 So. 2d 550 (1986)
Ex parte Willie James SAPP, Jr.
(Re Willie James Sapp, Jr. v. State of Alabama).
85-346.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 26, 1986.
James B. Sprayberry, Auburn, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Victor Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
BEATTY, Justice.
Certiorari was granted to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals had correctly interpreted Code of 1975, § 13A-8-41, which creates the offense of robbery in the first degree:
Under that section, the offender must violate § 13A-8-43:
Thus, to be found guilty under these statutes, the force or threat must have been used "in the course of committing" the theft, which, by statutory definition, § 13A-8-40, "embraces acts which occur... in immediate flight after the attempt or commission."
According to the facts as found by the Court of Criminal Appeals, 497 So. 2d 546, the petitioner left the victim's store with the "black jacket which appeared to belong to Wal-Mart," and then, approximately five or ten minutes later, returned to the store wearing the jacket, which proved to be the property of Wal-Mart. It was after this return that the violence occurred and the petitioner thereafter escaped.
We respectfully disagree with the Court of Criminal Appeals, finding that court in error in concluding that the facts constituted robbery. The armed force to which that court's opinion referred was not used "in the course of committing" the theft or "in immediate flight after the ... commission," but took place after the theft itself clearly had ceased. In short, the statutes applicable here have not transposed theft into robbery.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals must be, and it is hereby, reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court for an order consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, ALMON, SHORES and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
MADDOX and STEAGALL, JJ., dissent.
MADDOX, Justice (dissenting).
Admittedly, this is a close case, and probably represents the "twilight zone" of factual settings in which culpable conduct can be classified as "robbery" rather than "theft," but I am of the opinion that the Court of Criminal Appeals has correctly interpreted our new Criminal Code as applied to these particular facts, and I would affirm its judgment.
STEAGALL, J., concurs.