Case Title: Ex Parte Boyd

Citation: 796 So. 2d 1092

Docket Number: 1990740

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2001-04-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
796 So. 2d 1092 (2001)
Ex parte Lee BOYD.
(Re Lee Boyd v. State of Alabama).
1990740.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 6, 2001.
*1093 J. Brent Burney of Burney & Burney, Decatur, for petitioner.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Cecil G. Brendle, Jr., asst. atty. gen., for respondent.
WOODALL, Justice.
Lee Boyd was indicted for felony driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of § 32-5A-191(h), Ala.Code 1975. Two of the three prior convictions relied upon by the State to indict Boyd were more than five years old. Boyd filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that Act No. 97-556, 1997 Ala. Acts 985, unconstitutionally removed the phrase "within a five-year period" from § 32-5A-191(h). The circuit court found that Act No. 97-556 does not violate Ala. Const.1901, § 45. Therefore, the court denied Boyd's motion to dismiss, and he pled guilty, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the circuit court. Boyd petitioned this Court for certiorari review. We granted his petition.
Boyd argues that the title of Act No. 97-556 begins with a general statement that the proposed purpose of the Act is to make certain amendments to § 32-5A-191. The Act then expressly indexes four particular amendments to the statute dealing with the collection and disbursement of fines. The title does not mention the elimination of the five-year limitation period contained within § 32-5A-191(g) and (h). Boyd argues that because the title does not state a general purpose of amending § 32-5A-191, but instead lists particular proposed amendments to § 35-5A-191, the inclusion, within the body of the act, of changes regarding the elimination of the five-year limitation period, violates § 45 of the Constitution.
Section 45 states:
(Emphasis added.)
In Bagby Elevator & Electric Co. v. McBride, this Court stated the purpose of the provision:
292 Ala. 191, 194, 291 So. 2d 306, 308 (1974) (quoting State v. Hester, 260 Ala. 566, 72 So. 2d 61 (1954)). See also Knight v. West Alabama Envtl. Improvement Auth., 287 Ala. 15, 246 So. 2d 903 (1971); Opinion of the Justices No. 215, 294 Ala. 555, 319 So. 2d 682 (1975).
When deciding whether an act violates § 45, this Court
Knight, 287 Ala. at 22, 246 So. 2d  at 908, quoting Opinion of the Justices No. 174, 275 Ala. 254, 257, 154 So. 2d 12, 15 (1963).
It is well established that this Court should be very reluctant to hold any act unconstitutional.
Wilkins v. Woolf, 281 Ala. 693, 697, 208 So. 2d 74, 78 (1968) (overruled on other grounds, Tanner v. Tuscaloosa County Comm'n, 594 So. 2d 1207 (Ala.1992)).
The title to the Act sub judice states:
The body of Act No. 97-556 states:
*1098 Prior to the legislature's passage of Act No. 97-556, § 32-5A-191(g) and (h) read as follows:
(Emphasis added.)
Boyd could not have been convicted of a felony under that earlier version of § 32-5A-191(h).
Boyd argues that the broad pronouncement in the title that the Act seeks to amend § 32-5A-191 followed by the description of specific amendments is misleading, and that the title fails to apprise the average legislator of amendments to any subsection of § 32-5A-191 other than the changes regarding the collection and distribution of fines. However, this Court has repeatedly held:
Department of Indus. Relations v. West Boylston Mfg. Co., 253 Ala. 67, 75, 42 So. 2d 787, 793 (1949) (citing McCoy v. Jefferson County, 232 Ala. 651, 169 So. 304 (1936); State v. Davis, 130 Ala. 148, 30 So. 344, 89 Am. St. Rep. 23 (1901); Board of Revenue v. Jansen, 224 Ala. 240, 139 So. 358 (1932); Ferguson v. Commissioners' Court, 187 Ala. 645, 65 So. 1028 (1914); A. Bertolla & Sons v. State, 247 Ala. 269, 24 So. 2d 23 (1945); Wood & Pritchard v. McClure, 209 Ala. 523, 96 So. 577 (1923); Dunn Constr. Co. v. State Bd. of Adjustment, 234 Ala. 372, 175 So. 383 (1937); Davis v. City of Tuscumbia, 236 Ala. 552, 183 So. 657 (1938); Smith v. Birmingham Realty Co., 208 Ala. 114, 94 So. 117 (1922); Ballenger Constr. Co. v. State Bd. of Adjustment, 234 Ala. 377, 175 So. 387 (1937); Rogers v. Garlington, 234 Ala. 13, 173 So. 372, (1937)).
Also, this Court has held that such a title, followed by an act setting out the section amended, satisfies the purposes of § 45.
Davis v. City of Tuscumbia, 236 Ala. at 555, 183 So.  at 659.
The title to Act No. 97-556 clearly states an intent to amend § 32-5A-191. The text of the Act does not deviate from that intent, but simply sets out § 32-5A-191 as amended. The subject matter of the amendment is indisputably germane to the *1099 subject matter of that section. The use of the phrase "to further provide" does not limit the purpose of the act; instead, it alerts the reader of the title to additional changes in the provisions of the section. Therefore, we find that the title is not misleading, and that the portions of Act No. 97-556 that struck "within five years" from § 32-5A-191(g) and (h) are valid.
The trial court did not err in rejecting Boyd's constitutional argument and denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. Therefore, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
MOORE, C.J., and HOUSTON, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, HARWOOD, and STUART, JJ., concur.