REL:06/20/2014

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, 2 013-2 014

_____ _____ _____ _____ 11306 49

_____ _____ _____ _____ Ex pa rte RobertGill PETIT ION FOR WRIT OFCERT IORARI TO THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS

(In re: Robert Gill

v. Stateof Alabama) (Morgan Ci rcuitCour t, CC -95-4 3; Courtof C riminal Appeals , CR- 12-19 72)

BOLIN , Jus tice. WRIT DENIE D. N O OPI NION.11306 49

Stuar t, Parke r, Mur dock, Shaw, Main, Wise, and Bryan , JJ., concu r. Moore , C.J ., di ssent s.

211306 49

MOORE , Chi ef Ju stice (dis senti ng). I would grant inmat e Rober t Gill' s petit ion for a writ of certi orari to revie w the Court of Crimi nal Appea ls' affirmance of the trial court 's denia l of Gi l l ' s motio n for sente nce

recon sider ation filed pursu ant to § 13A-5 -9.1, Ala. Code 1975. Gill v. St ate ( No. C R-12- 1972, Feb. 7, 2 014), ___ So. 3 d ___ (Ala. Crim . App . 201 4)(ta ble). Ther efore , I d issen t fro m the d e n i al of his petit ion. I belie ve that Gill' s case is repre senta tive of a syste mic probl em assoc iated with th e Habit ual Felon y Offen der Act, § 13A-5 -9, Ala. Code 1975 ("the HFOA" ). Gill was convi cted of first

- d egree robbe ry, a Class A felon y, and was sente nced as a habit ual felon y offen d e r to life impri sonme nt witho ut the possi bilit y of parol e. His prior convi ction s inclu ded convi ction s for distr ibuti on of a contr olled subst ance and for two count s of posse ssion o f a contr olled subst ance. This p e t ition for certi orari revie w arise s out of Gill' s fourt h motio n for sen t e n c e

recon sider ation , which the circu it court summa rily denie d. On his appea l o f t hat denia l to the Court of Crimi nal Appea ls, Gill ar g ued that, becau se he was a nonvi olent offen der, the

311306 49

circu it court had excee ded its discr etion in de n y i ng his motio n for sente nce recon sider ation . Affirming the ci r c u it court 's denia l of Gill' s motio n, the Court of Crimi nal Appea ls issue d an unpub lishe d memor andum quoti ng its rulin g i n the appea l invol ving Gill' s third motio n for sente nce

recon sider ation : "'Suf fice it to say, we have revie we d the

recor d and, consi derin g that Gill was a rm e d w i th a knife durin g the robbe ry, we find no abuse of discr etion on the part of th e cir cuit court in f indin g himto b e a v iolen t off ender and thu s ineli gible for sente nce recon sider ation .'" This stat e m ent presu ppose s that the offen se for which Gill was convi cted determined wheth er he was a viole nt offen de r . As expla ined below , I rejec t this assumpti o n. I belie ve that § 13A–5 –9.1 and K irby v. St ate, 899 S o. 2d968( Ala. 2004) , and its proge ny prohi bit a sente ncing or presi ding judge from determinin g wheth er an inmat e is a v i olent offen der for purpo se s of sente nce recon sider ation based solel y on the offen se of whic h t he inmat e was convi cted. The statu tory requi remen t th a t the sente ncing or presi ding judge must consi der "eval uatio ns perfo rmed by t h e Depar tment of Corre ction s and appro ved by the Board of Pardo ns and Parol es"

411306 49

in determinin g wheth er to re c onsid er a defen dant' s sente nce sugge sts t hat t he of fense for whichthe inmat e was conv icted may not serve as the sole basis for determinin g wheth er an inmat e is a vio lent or a nonvi olent offe nder for p urpos es of § 13A –5–9. 1. Befor e 200 0, th e HFOA rea d, inpert inent part : "(c) In all cases when it is shown that a crimi nal defen dant has been previ ously convi cted of any three felon ies and after such convi ction s h a s commi tted anoth er felon y, he must be pu n i s h ed as follo ws: "(1) On convi ction of a Cl ass C felon y, he must be punis hed by impri sonme nt f o r life or for any term not more th a n 9 9 years but not l ess t han 1 5 yea rs. "(2) On convi ctio n of a Class B felon y, he must be punis hed for life in the penit entia ry. "(3) On convi cti on of a Class A felon y, he must be punis hed by impri sonme nt for l ife w ithou t par ole." (Emph asis added .) The HFOA was amend ed effec tive May 25, 2000; subse ction(c) now r eads:

"(c) In all cases when it is shown that a crimi nal defen dant has been previ ously convi cted of any three felon ies a n d after such convi ction s has commi tted anoth er felon y, he or she must be punis hed as fo llows :

511306 49 "(1) On convi ct ion of a Class C felon y, he or she must be punis hed b y impri sonme nt fo r life or for any term of not more than 99 years but not less than 15 years . "(2) On convi ction of a Class B felon y, he or she must be pun ished by impri sonme nt for life or any te rm of not less than 20 ye ars. "(3) On convi ction o f a Class A felon y, where t h e defen dant has no prior convi ction s for any Class A felon y, he or she mus t b e punis hed by impri sonme nt for life or life witho ut t h e possi bilit y of parol e, in the discr etion of the trial court . "(4) On convi ction of a Class A felon y, where the defen dant has one or more prior convi ction s for any Cla s s A felon y, he or she must be punis hed by impri sonme nt for life witho ut the possi bilit y of parol e." (Emph asis added .) The Amendment Notes to the HFOA descr ibe the chang es ef fectu ated by th e 200 0 ame ndmen t:

"The 2000 amendment ... inser ted 'or she' in e l e ven place s; in subse ction (a), in th e intro ducto ry matte r subst itute d 'a felon y and after the' for 'any felon y and aftersuch'; in subse ction (c), in subdi v i s i on (1) inser ted 'of' follo wing 'term ', in subdi visio n (2) subst itute d 'by impri sonme nt for life or any t e rm of not less than 20 years ' for 'life in t h e p enite ntiar y', in subdi visio n (3) subst itute d 'wher e the defen dant has no prior convi ction s for an y C l ass A felon y, he or she must be p u nishe d by impri sonme nt for life or life witho ut the possi bilit y of parol e, in the

611306 49

discr etio n o f the trial court ' for 'he must be punis hed by impri so n ment for life witho ut parol e', and added subdi visio n (4); and made nonsu bstan tive chang es." Amendment Notes , § 1 3A-5- 9(c), Ala. Code 1975 . In Kirby , this Court descr ibed the reaso ning behin d, and the i mplem entat ion o f, th e 200 0 ame ndmen t to the H FOA: "In 2000, the Legis latur e amend ed the HFOA to allow a s enten ce to be impos ed for certa in habit ual offen ders less sever e than life impri sonme nt witho ut parol e under certa in circumstan ces. Speci fical l y , and relev ant to this proce eding , § 13A–5 –9(c) (3) was amend ed so that a defen dant with three prior felon y convi ction s, none of which was for a Class A felon y, who is subse quent ly c o nvict ed of a Class A felon y may be sente nced to impri sonme nt for l i f e or life impri sonme nt witho ut th e possi bilit y of parol e, in the discr etion of the tri al court .[ ] Befor e that 1 amendm ent, a sente nce of life impri sonme nt witho ut

Justi ce S t u art has expla ined that "the 2000 amendment 1 provi ded judge s w i t h the discr etion , when sente ncing a defen dant, to order the defen dant to serve a sente nce of life i mp risonment when convi cted of a fourt h felon y offen se, provi ded that the fourt h felon y convi ction was not for a Class A fel ony a nd th e def endan t hadnot previ ouslybeenconv icted of a Class A felon y." Holt v. State , 960 So. 2d 740, 745 (Ala. 2006) (diss entin g from qua shing the writ of certi orari ). Naber s, C. J., a nd Se e, St uart, and Parke r, JJ ., di ssent ed in that case. Just ice S ee di ssent ed onthe groun d tha t § 1 3A-5- 9.1 m ay vi olate the separ ation -of-p owers doct rine insof ar as the legis latur e in enact ing it may have usu r p e d power s r e s e rved for the judic iary by requi ring trial court s to recog nize juris dicti on ov er cr imina l def endan ts mo re th an 30 days after the c r i minal defen dants were sente nced and by manda ting that trial court s enter t a i n motio ns for sente nce recon sider ationin c ertai n cir cumst ances . Ho lt, 960 S o. 2d at 74 1-44. 711306 49

the possi bilit y of parol e was manda tory under § 1 3 A

– 5–9(c )(3) for a Class A felon y offen der wit h three prior felon y convi ction s. In 2001, the L egisl ature passe d Act No. 2001– 977 ('the Act') in an attempt to make the 2000 amendm ents to § 13A–5 –9 retro activ e. The state d purpo se o f the Act was 'to provi de furth er for eligi bilit y for parol e consi derat ion of non-v iolen t offen ders. ' The Act, now codif ied as § 13A–5 –9.1, state s in its entir ety:

"'T he provi sions of Secti on 13A–5 –9 shall be appli ed retro activ ely by the sente ncing judge or presi ding judge for consi derat ion of early parol e of each non v iolen t convi cted offen der based on evalu ation s perfo rmed by the Depar tment of C o r recti ons and appro ved by the Board o f Pardo ns and Parol es and submi tted t o t he court .' "The A ct becam e effec tive on December 1, 2001. Howev er, becau se the Depar tment of Corre ction s ('the DOC') and the Board of Pardo ns and P a r oles ('the Parol e Board ') concl uded that there were signi fican t probl ems with § 13A–5 –9.1, i t ha[d] not ... been imple mente d or appli ed [a s of Augus t 200 4]. "On Septe mber 29, 2001, the same day he appro ved the Act, then Gover nor Siege lman signe d Execu tive O r d e r Numbe r 62 ('EO 62') calli ng for the devel opmen t of a 'proc ess for evalu ating non-v iolen t offen ders possi bly affec ted by [§ 13A–5 –9.1] .' EO 62 direc ted the DOC to devel op guide lines and proce dures for determinin g which inmat es woul d be eligi ble for recon sider ation of their sente nces under § 13A–5

– 9.1. EO 62 also purpo rted to suspe nd opera tion of § 13A–5 –9.1 un t i l June 1, 2002, 'by which time the Depar tment of Corre ction s shoul d have devel oped a n evalu ation proce ss to determine which offen ders are " non-v iolen t."'"

811306 49

899 So. 2d at 969- 70 (foot note omitt ed; all but initi al empha sis added ). "At the time § 13A-5 -9.1, Ala. Code 1 9 7 5, becam e effec tive the quest ion arose as to how a circu it court retai ned the autho rity to recon sider an inmat e's sente nce when that court norma lly loses juris dicti on to modif y a defen dant' s sente nce in a crimi nal case withi n 30 days of sente ncing if a postj udgme nt mo tion is no t fil ed." Holt v. St ate, 960 S o. 2d 740, 745 (Ala. 2006) (Stua rt, J., disse nting from quash ing the writ of certi orari ). This Court resol ved that quest io n in Kirby , which held that an inmat e need not have a case pendi ng befor e the circu it court in order to file a motio n for

recon sider ation of sente nce under § 13A-5 -9.1 and also that § 13A-5 -9.1 veste d the circu it co urts with juris dicti on to consi der such motio ns for sente nce recon sider ation . Kirby , 899 So. 2d at 971. There fore, under Kirby , "an inmat e may ask the sente ncing judge or the p r e s i ding judge for relie f from a previ ous s enten ce imposedpurs uant to th e HFOA." I d. As a resul t of Kirby and subse quent cases inter p retin g Kirby , a three

- s tep "test " has devel oped for evalu ating motio ns fo r sen tence reco nside ratio n und er § 13A-5 -9.1. Step

one is to determine wheth er the motio n w a s filed in the

911306 49

appro priat e court and assig ned to the appro priat e judge (i.e. , the sen t e n c i ng judge or the presi ding judge ). Ex parte Sandi fer, 925 So. 2d 290, 295-9 6 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005) . Step two is to determine wheth er the motio n is a succe ssive motio n. U n d e r Ex parte Gunn, 993 So. 2d 433, 435-3 7 (Ala. 200 7 ) , a circu it c ourt does have juris dicti on to consi der succe ssive motio ns fo r sen tence reco nside ratio n; ho wever , the fact that a mot ion f or se ntenc e rec onsid erati on is succ essiv e has been h e l d t o be a valid basis for denyi ng the motio n. Ashfo r d v . State , 12 So. 3 d 160 , 162 (Ala . Cri m. Ap p. 20 08). S t e p three consi sts of three parts and addre sses a n inmat e's eligi bilit y for sente nce recon sider ation . Merel y becau se an inmat e is eligi ble for sente nce recon sider a t i on does not m ean t hat t he inmate must be re sente nced. Holt , 960 So. 2d at 735 n.3 ("[A] circu it court is not re qu i r e d to

resen tence an inmat e merel y becau se it determines tha t the inmat e is eligi ble for recon sider ation of his or her sente nce." ).

"Ther e are three requi remen ts for eligi bilit y to have a sente nce recon sider ed under § 13A-5 -9.1: (1) the inmat e was sente nced befor e May 2 5 , 2000, the date the 2000 amendment to t h e HFOA becam e effec tive; (2) the inmat e was sente nced to life impri sonme nt witho ut the possi bilit y of parol e
1011306 49

pur s uant to § 13A-5 -9(c) (3) and had no prior Class A felon y convi ction s or was s e n t enced to life impri sonme nt pursu ant to § 13A-5 -9(c) (2).. .; and (3) the inmat e is a 'nonv iolen t convi cted offen der.' An inmat e must satis fy all three requi remen ts befor e he o r she is eligi ble for recon sider ation of t h e sente nce under § 13A-5 -9.1. If a circu it court determines that an inmat e is eli g i b l e for recon sider ation of his or her sente n c e , the court then h a s the autho rity pursu ant to § 13A-5 -9.1 to resen tence the inmat e, withi n the bound s of § 13A-5

- 9(c)( 2) o r § 13A-5 -9(c) (3), as amend ed, if it so choos es. I f , on the other hand, the circu it court determines that the inmat e fails to meet any or all of the eligi bilit y requi remen ts then the circu it court must deny the inmat e's § 13A-5 -9.1 motio n beca use a circu it court has juris dicti on to resen tence only those inmat es who meet the eligi bilit y requirem ents of § 13A-5 -9.1. ..." Holt, 960 So. 2 d at 734-3 5 (emphasi s add ed). Becau se § 13A-5 -9.1 does not defin e "nonv iolen t convi cted offen der," c i r cuit court s have had diffi culty determinin g wheth er an inmat e is "nonv iolen t" and h e n c e eligi ble for sente nce recon sider ation . Altho ugh it is appro priat e f o r a circu it court to consi der wheth er the offen se commi tted by an inmat e s e e king recon sider ation of his or her sente nce is statu toril y defin ed as a "viol ent offen se," this fact alone does not neces saril y rende r an inmat e a viole nt convi cted offen der. Holt, 960 So. 2 d at 736. Accor dingl y, co mmitt ing a "viol ent o ffens e" as defi ned b y sta tute does not p erman ently

1111306 49

brand an inmat e as a " v i o lent offen der" for purpo ses of § 13A–5 –9.1, which maint ai n s that the sente ncing or presi ding judge must consi der the "eval uatio ns perfo rmed by the Depar tment of Corre ction s and appro ved by the Board of Pardo ns and P arole s." H olt, 760 S o. 2dat 7 36; § 13A– 5–9.1 . "[I]n deter m i ning wheth er an inmat e is a 'nonv iolen t

conv icted offen der' withi n the meani ng of § 13A-5 -9.1, what weigh t to affor d each facto r prese nted to [the circu it court ] is withi n the circu it court 's discr etion ." Holt, 960 So. 2d at 738.

" A circu it court is not requi red to make speci fic findi ngs of fac t r e gardi ng the weigh t it affor ds each facto r, and in revie wing a circu it court 's determinat ion of wheth er an inmat e is a 'nonv iolen t convi cted offen der,' this Court will give the trial court great defer ence r e g ardin g the weigh t it affor ded the fact o r s prese nted to it, and we will presume that the circu it court prop e rly consi dered and weigh ed each facto r prese nted, unles s the recor d affirmativ ely s hows other wise. " 960 So. 2d at 738. "[W]h ether an inmat e is a 'nonv iolen t convi cted offen der' is based on a total i t y of the circumstan ces." Id. By "t otali ty ofthe circumstan ces," this Court means "the tot a l i t y of the informatio n befor e the circu it court when it rules on the § 13A-5 -9.1 motio n [for sente nce recon sider ation ]." Id. "[A] circu it c o u r t is not

1211306 49

precl uded from consi derin g, nor may it refus e to consi der, all of th e fac tors prese nted to it by e itherpart y." I d. One facto r invol ves "eval uatio ns" of the i n m ate "perf ormed by th e Depar tment of Corre ction s and appro ved by the Board of Pardo ns and Parol es and submi tted to the court ." § 13A -5-9. 1. Ki rby i mplie s tha t a p resumptionof n onvio lence attac hes t o a m otionfor sente nce r econs idera tion by ho lding that "if the DOC [Depa rtmen t of Corre ction s] does not provi de the evalu ation in a timel y fashi on, the State will have waive d any i nput as to the inmat e's c onduc t whi le in carce ratedthat the sente ncing judge or the presi ding judge mig ht other wise have c o n s i dered in determinin g wheth er the inmat e is a nonvi olent o f f ender ." Kirby , 899 So. 2d at 975. Moreo ver, "[w]h ile t he in forma tion avail able to th e tri al co urt i n the DOC's evalu ation will be helpf ul in makin g its determinat ion," the Depar tment of Corre ction s' failu re to submi t an evalu ation waive s the State 's input regar ding wheth er the inmat e i s a viole nt offen der. 899 So. 2d at 8 7 4 . If the Depar tment of Corre ction s does not submi t an evalu ation , then it prese nts no evide nce to rebut an inmat e's claim that the inmat e is a nonvi ol e nt convi cted offen der. I disag ree that "§ 13A-5 -9.1

1311306 49

does not r equir e a c ircui t cou rt to orde r, orthe Depar tment of Corre ction s to submi t, an inmat e evalu ation , [and that] it merel y permi ts the consi derat ion by the circu it court of such

an evalu ation ." Holt, 960 So. 2d at 737. The circu it court is requi red t o ord er th e Dep artme nt ofCorr ectio ns to subm it an inmat e eva luati on. I note in concl usion that the legis latur e repea led 13A-5

- 9.1, Ala. Code 1975, effec tive March 13, 2014. See Act No. 2014- 165, Ala. Acts 2014. Ther efore , the HFOA , as amend ed in 2000, will no l ongerbe a pplie d ret roact ively . Act No. 2014- 165 state s that " t his act shall be appli ed prosp ectiv ely only. " Sec tion 2, Ac t No. 2014 -165. Neve rthel ess, the r epeal of 13 A-5-9 .1 is not effec tive as to all cases : "An y cas e, on the effec t i v e date of this act, in which a motio n filed pursu ant to 13A-5 -9.1, Code of Alaba ma 1975, is pendi ng in the trial court or is subje ct to an a p p e a l or pendi ng in an appel late court on appe a l f rom the denia l or dismi ssal of a motio n sha ll no t be affec ted b y thi s act ." Id . The retro activ e appli catio n of the amend ed HFOA corre cted

an unjus t sente ncing schem e that manda ted the impri sonme nt of many no n viole nt convi cted offen ders for life with no

1411306 49

oppor tunit y for parol e. The recen t repea l of § 1 3 A -5-9. 1 elimi nates all chanc es ofrele ase f or no nviol ent i nmate s who

are servi ng a term of life impriso nment witho ut the possi bilit y of p arole but who are reformed or rehab ilita ted while in priso n. Recen t p e titio ns befor e this Court have argue d tha t, incont raven tion of § 13A-5 -9.1, the Depar tment of C orrec tions was not submi tting inmat e evalu ation s to the circu it court s when inmat es moved for a recon sider ati o n of their sente nce and that, even when the Depar tment of Corre ction s submi tted such evalu ation s, circu it cou r t s were not consi derin g the inmat e e v a luati ons befor e rulin g on motio ns f o r s enten ce recon sider ation . See, e.g., Ex parte Pate, [Ms. 1 1 2 0 3 48, Augus t 30, 2013] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2013) (noti ng that circu it court did not consi der inm a te's motio n forsent ence recon sider ationon i ts me rits) ; Ex parte Manle y (No. 11203 82, Mar c h 8 , 2013) , ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2013) (tabl e)(de nying pe titio n for a writ of certi orari in a

case in wh ich a n inm ate a llege d tha t, in steadof c onsid ering his i nmate eval uatio ns, t he ci rcuit cour t det ermin ed th at he

was a viole nt offen der even thoug h the previ ous felon ies used to enhan ce his sente nce under the HFOA we r e n o nviol ent

1511306 49

offen ses and the o ffens e for which he was convi cted and sente nced under the HFOA w a s class ified as robbe ry simpl y becau se he stol e gun s); a nd Expart e Har per, [No. 11304 96](a pendi ng petit ion for certi orari revie w in which the i n mate

a l l e g e s that the circu it court refus ed to consi der the evide nce he submi tted to the circu it cour t , inclu ding his priso n recor ds, befor e rulin g, solel y on the b a s i s of his under lying offen se of robbe ry, that he was a viole nt offen der). If these alleg ation s are true, then § 13A-5 -9.1 is not b eing follo wed i n let ter o r spi rit. There fore, becau se I belie ve there are speci al and impor tant reaso ns for this Court to grant Gill' s petit ion for

a writ of certi orari in this case and the petit ions in

numer ous o ther cases , I r espec tfull y dis sent.

16