Rel: 12/12/14

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 ALA BAMA

OCTOBER TERM, 2 014-2 015

_____ _____ _____ _____ 11312 79

_____ _____ _____ _____ Ex pa rte S hanno n RayJohn son PETIT ION FOR WRIT OFCERT IORARI TO THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: ShannonRay Johns on

v. Stateof Alabama) (Lauderdal e Cir cuit Court , CC- 11-48 5; Courtof C rimin al Appeals , CR- 12-20 86) BRYAN , Jus tice. WRIT DENIE D. N O OPI NION. Stuar t, Bo lin, Shaw, Main , andWise , JJ. , con cur.11312 79

Moore , C.J ., an d Par ker a nd Mu rdock , JJ. , dis sent.

211312 79

MOORE , Chi ef Ju stice (dis senti ng). I respe ctful ly disse nt from the Court 's decis ion to deny petit ioner Shann on Ray J o h n s on's reque st for a writ of certi orari direc ted to the Alaba ma Court of Crimi nal Appea ls.

Facts and Proce dural Hist ory In March 2011, Johns on plead ed guilt y to resis ting

arres t, a viola tion of § 13A-1 0-33, Ala. Code 1975, in the distr ict court of Laude rdale Count y. The Court of Cri m inal Appea ls' unpub lishe d memor andum , Johns on v. State (No. CR-12

- 2086, April 25, 2014) , ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2014) (tabl e), p rovid es th e fol lowin g fac ts:

"The distr ict court judge sente n c e d Johns on to six mon t h s in the Laude rdale Count y Work Relea se Cente r ('LCWRC'). The LCWRC is op e rated by the Lau d erdal e Count y Commu nity Corre ction s Autho rity. Johns on repor ted to the LCWRC that eveni ng and was given a class i f i catio n that preve nted him from leavi ng the L C WRC for any reaso n. Johns on was infor med that night of his class ifica tion. The next day Johns on was again told that h e c o uld not leave the L CWRC. "At 7:00 p.m. on Ma r ch 31, 2011, an Alcoh olics An onymo us meeti ng was held in a commo n area of t h e LCWRC . A corre ction s offic er annou n c e d that the m eetin g was begin ning, and Johns on went to th e commo n area along with other inmat es. Short ly after the meeti ng began, Johns on walke d out of the commo n area and off the LCWRC grou n d s . A corre ction s offic er repor ted the escap e to law enfor cemen t, and the n e x t day, April 1, 2011, Daryl Willi ams, 311312 79

super visor of the LCWRC , obtai ned a warra nt for Johns on's arres t. "Late r that day, Robbi e Howar d of t h e Flore nce Polic e Depar tment saw Johns on near a Johns on famil y busin ess. Johns on got into a vehic le and drove away. Howar d follo wed Johns on befor e stopp ing and arres ting him w ithou t inc ident ." Johns on was convi cted in the Laude rdale Circu it Court of third -degr ee escap e under § 13A-1 0-33, Ala. Code 1975 . The St ate offer ed four of Johns on's prior felon y convi ction s in suppo rt of its reque st to have Johns on sente nced unde r t he Habit ual Felon y Offen der Act, § 13A-5 -9, Ala. Code 1975 ("the HFOA" ). Two of the four convi ction s were felon y c onvic tions from Georg ia. Johns on objec ted to the admis sion of the Ge o r g ia

conv i c t i o n s on the groun d that they were not prope rly authe ntica ted, that the State faile d to lay t h e p r oper found ation for admit ting them , and that the State faile d to provi de advan ce notic e of its inten t to use the Georg ia convi ction s. The circu it co u r t admit ted the Georg ia convi ction s over Johns on's objec tion and sente nced Johns on as a hab itual offe nder to li fe impriso nment unde r the HFOA . Johns on appea led to the Court of Crimi nal Appea ls, which affir med his convi ction and sente nce in an unpub l i s h e d

411312 79

memor andum . That court overr uled Johns on's appli catio n f or rehea ring. Johns on then filed this petit ion for certi o r a ri revie w. Subje ct-Ma tter Juris dicti on ofthe Circu it Co urt Befor e the Court of Crimi nal Appea ls, Johns on argue d that the evide nce of his Georg ia con victi ons was inadm issib le becau se the State faile d to prove that the condu ct under lying his Georg ia convi ction s would have const itute d felon i e s in A l a bama. The Court of Crimi nal Appea ls held that Johns o n faile d t o p r e s erve the issue of the admis sibil ity of his Georg ia co nvict ions becau se he made onlya ge neral obje ction at tr ial. In his certi orari petit ion befor e this Court , J ohnso n argue s tha t the Cour t of Crimi nal Appeal s' ho ldingconf licts with appel late decis ions holdi ng th at a gener al ob jecti on is suffi cient to prese rve f o r appea l a chall enge to paten tly illeg al evide nce. See, e.g., Satte rwhit e v. State , 364 So. 2d 359, 360 ( Ala. 1978) ("[A ] gen eral objec tion to admissi on of evide nce shoul d be susta ined if the evide nce is illeg al for any purpo se and canno t be made legal by i n t r o ducin g other evide nce or by other wise frami ng the in quiry ."). Wheth er

511312 79

Johns on's alleg ed confl ict groun d has any merit , I be l ieve that we shoul d have grant ed certi orari revie w to dete r mine wheth er th e cir cuit court had subje ct-ma tter juris dicti on to consi der J ohnso n's G eorgi a con victi ons. Rule 26.6( b)(3) (iv), Ala. R. Crim. P . , provi des, in relev ant p art: "Any convi ction in any juris dicti on, inclu ding Alaba ma, shall be consi dered and deter minedto be a felon y convi ction if the co n duct made the basis of that convi ction const itute s a felon y under Act 607, § 130(4 ), Acts of Alaba ma 1977, p. 812 (§ 13A-1

- 2(4), Alaba ma Crimi nal Code) , or w ould have const itute d a felon y under that secti on had the condu ct taken place in Alaba ma on or after Janua ry 1, 19 80 .. .." Under the plain langu age of Rule 26.6( b)(3) (iv), not e very prior convi c t i o n may be used to enhan ce the sente nce of a crimi nal defen dant as a habit ual felon . Only those convi ction s that satis fy th e cri teriaset forthin t he ru le ma y pro perly be consi dered . There fore, the quest ion wheth er a prior out-o fstate conv ictio n qua lifie s to enhan ce a sente nce g oes t o the juris dicti on of the sente ncing court . As the Court of Crimi nal Appea ls ha s sta ted: "A chall eng e t o the use of a prior convi ction from anoth er juris dicti on to enhan ce a sente nce under the HFOA on the groun ds that the prior convi ction arose from condu ct that was not a felon y in Alaba ma is a 611312 79

juris dicti onal issue chall engin g the legal ity of the sente nce." Skinn er v. State , 987 So. 2d 1172, 1175 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) (hold ing that a chall enge simil a r t o the one at issue was juris dicti onal and there fore not subje ct to the bar again st

succe ssive peti tions in Rule 3 2, Al a. R. Crim . P.) . "'Sub ject- matte r juris dicti on canno t be waive d, and the lack of subje ct-ma tter juris dicti on may be raise d at any time by a p arty or by a court ex mero motu . '" Ex parte Sider ius, 144 So. 3d 319, 323 (Ala. 2013) (quot ing Ex parte Puntu ro, 928 So. 2d 1030, 1033 (Ala. 2002) ). There fore, Johns on's first groun d suppo rting his petit ion for a writ of certi orari has a proba bilit y of merit .

Appli cabil ity o f Mis demea nor-E scape Stat ute Addit ional ly, I belie ve that Johns on state s a cogni zable confl ict with Terre ll v. State , 621 So. 2d 402 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993) . Johns on was convi cted of third -degr ee escap e under § 13A -10-3 3, Al a. Co de 19 75, w hich class ifies that esca pe as

a felon y and suppo rts Johns on's life sente nce. Secti on 13A-1 0- 33 prohi bits "esca p[ing ] or a t tempt [ing] to escap e from custo dy." (Emph asis added .) Se ction14-8 -42, Ala. Code 1975, is a misde meano r-esc ape s tatut e tha t pro vides : 711312 79 "The willf ul failu re of an inmat e to rem a in

withi n the exten ded limit s of his confin ement or to retur n to the place of confi nemen t w ithin the time presc ribed shall be deeme d an escap e from a s t ate penal insti tutio n in the case of a state inmat e and an escap e from the custo dy of the sheri ff in the case of a c o unty inmat e and shall be punis hable accor dingl y." (Emph asis added .) The Court of Crimi nal Ap p eals held in its unpub lishe d

memor andum that the misde meano r-esc ape statu te does not apply "[i]ncirc umsta nces where an i nmate of a ny type es capes from the d etent ion c enteritse lf." In su pport of i ts ho lding , the court relie d upon Nicho ls v. State , 518 So. 2d 851 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987) , which in turn cited Hall v. State , 386 So. 2d 765 (Ala. Crim . App . 198 0). Howev er, the inmat e in Hall was being trans porte d by two

corre ction al couns elors when he b roke free and escap ed. The court held that, "[u]n der the parti cular facts of this case, " the inmat e escap ed from "actu al custo dy" under the fe l onyescap e statu te and did not fail "to remai n withi n the exten ded limit s of his c onfin ement " und er a forme r mis demea nor-e scape statu te. 386 S o . 2d at 766. Johns on, howev er, did not break free from t h e custo dy of offic ials, but faile d to remai n at the work- relea se cente r. I belie ve that the concl usion by the

811312 79

Court of Crimi nal Appea ls that depar ting a work- relea se cente r witho ut au thori zatio n doe s not cons titut e mis demea nor e scape finds no suppo rt in the langu age of § 14-8- 42, which prohi bits "[t]h e willf ul f a i l u r e of an inmat e to remai n withi n the exten ded l imits of h is co nfine ment. " Johns on all e g e d that the Court of Crimi nal Appea ls' holdi ng co nflic ts wi th it s dec isionin T errel l v. State , 621 S o . 2d 402 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993) , in which the court h e l d t hat a count y inmat e who escap ed while servi ng time f o r a misde meano r could be found guilt y of only misde meano r escap e, and not felon y third -degr ee escap e. Like Terre ll, Johns on "was

a count y inmat e servi ng time for a misde meano r." Petit ion, at 10. There for e , I belie ve that Johns on's secon d groun d for certi orari revi ew ha s a p robab ilityof m erit. Concl usion F or the above -stat ed reaso ns, I would grant Johns on's petit ion for a writ of certi orari to consi der his chall enge to the use of his Georg ia convi ction s to enhan ce his sente nce and the adver se const ructi on of the misde meano r-esc ape statu te, § 14-8- 42, A la. C ode 1 975.

9