Title: Ex parte William R. Nesbitt.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL:  04/22/2016
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2015-2016
_________________________
1150602
_________________________
Ex parte William R. Nesbitt
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
(In re:  William R. Nesbitt
v.
State of Alabama)
(Baldwin Circuit Court, CC-94-30.64, CC-94-31.64, and
CC-94-126.64;
Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-14-0844)
WISE, Justice.
WRIT DENIED.  NO OPINION.
Bolin, Parker, and Shaw, JJ., concur.  
Moore, C.J., concurs specially.
Stuart, J., recuses herself.
1150602
MOORE, Chief Justice (concurring specially).
I concur with this Court's decision to deny William R.
Nesbitt's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the
decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals. However, I write
separately to point out what I consider to be the severity,
given the offenses, of Nesbitt's sentences, which I hope the
Board of Pardons and Paroles will consider when Nesbitt
becomes eligible for parole.
Nesbitt was convicted in 1994 of third-degree burglary,
possession of burglary tools, and first-degree receiving
stolen property. The trial court sentenced Nesbitt, as a
habitual offender with prior felony convictions,  to life
1
imprisonment for each conviction, the sentences to run
concurrently.
On July 1, 2014, Nesbitt filed the present Rule 32, Ala.
R. Crim. P., petition, which was his fifth. In that petition,
Nesbitt claimed that his sentences are illegal because, he
says: (1) his sentences were enhanced on the basis of only one
Nesbitt apparently had prior felony convictions from
1
Georgia that were used to enhance his sentence, although he
argues in his Rule 32 petition that only one of those prior
felony convictions was used to enhance his sentence. See
infra.
2
1150602
prior felony; (2) the State failed to prove that the prior
felonies it used to enhance his sentence were actually
felonies; and (3) his indictments for third-degree burglary
and first-degree receiving stolen property were fatally
defective. Nesbitt also claimed that the State failed to prove
that the taking of property during the burglary was "felony
theft" as required by law. Finally, Nesbitt claimed that he
was never pronounced guilty by the trial judge in open court.
The State's response was that Nesbitt's petition was
successive. The trial court dismissed Nesbitt's petition,
finding: (1) that he could have raised his claims at trial or
on appeal but did not; (2) that his claims were time-barred;
and (3) that his claims were insufficiently pleaded.
Nesbitt appealed the dismissal of his Rule 32 petition to
the Court of Criminal Appeals. In an unpublished memorandum
authored by Judge Joiner, that court, after a diligent
analysis of each of Nesbitt's claims, affirmed the order of
the trial court dismissing Nesbitt's petition. Nesbitt v.
State (No. CR-14-0844, Feb. 5, 2016), ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala.
Crim. App. 2016) (table). Nesbitt filed an application for
rehearing, which was overruled. Nesbitt then petitioned this
3
1150602
Court for a writ of certiorari, which the Court now denies. I
concur with the Court's decision to deny his petition because
I believe that Nesbitt has not demonstrated that certiorari
review is warranted under the limited grounds set forth in
Rule 39(a)(1), Ala. R. App. P. I also am not convinced that
the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in any way in analyzing
the specific claims Nesbitt raised before that court. 
However, I feel compelled to comment on the severity of
Nesbitt's sentences. Life imprisonment is one of the most
severe penalties the state can impose; only the death penalty
and life imprisonment without the possibility of parole are
more severe. Because life imprisonment is such a severe
penalty, it should be reserved for only those crimes that are
truly egregious. "Just legislation 
requires 
that 
the
punishment should be proportioned to the offence which is
denounced, 
and 
any 
principle 
which 
forestalls 
such 
legislation
is not founded in wisdom and sound policy." Mayor and Alderman
of Huntsville v. Phelps, 27 Ala. 55, 57 (1855). 
In this case, Nesbitt was convicted of three crimes, all
of which were offenses against property, but none of which
involved harm to persons. There is no evidence suggesting that
4
1150602
Nesbitt killed or severely harmed anyone or that he attempted
to kill or harm someone in the course of committing the crimes
of which he was convicted. I am therefore at a loss to
understand how Nesbitt's sentences are proportional to the
crimes he committed. 
I wrote recently that "[t]here is a difference between
justice and overkill." Ex parte Conner, [Ms. 1150448, March
25, 2016] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2016) (Moore, C.J.,
dissenting). Imposing a life sentence for a property crime
appears to me to be overkill, not justice. Thus, although I do
not find merit in the particular claims Nesbitt raises in his
petition, I do hope that the Board of Pardons and Paroles will
consider the severity of his sentences in determining whether
to grant Nesbitt relief when he becomes eligible for parole.
5