Title: Ex parte Douglas John Howell. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Douglas John Howell v. State of Alabama)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1060139
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: April 20, 2007

REL: 04/19/2007 Ex parte Howell
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)
242-4621), 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, 2006-2007
_________________________
1060139
_________________________
Ex parte Douglas John Howell
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
(In re:  Douglas John Howell
v.
State of Alabama)
(Geneva Circuit Court, CC-05-202;
Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-05-0121)
LYONS, Justice.
Douglas John Howell appeals the affirmance by the Court
of Criminal Appeals of the trial court's denial of youthful-
1060139
Section 15-19-1 provides: 
1
"(a) A person charged with a crime which was
committed in his minority but was not disposed of in
juvenile court and which involves moral turpitude or
is subject to a sentence of commitment for one year
or more shall, and, if charged with a lesser crime
may be investigated and examined by the court to
determine whether he should be tried as a youthful
offender, provided he consents to such examination
and to trial without a jury where trial by jury
would otherwise be available to him. If the
defendant consents and the court so decides, no
further action shall be taken on the indictment or
information unless otherwise ordered by the court as
provided in subsection (b) of this section."
2
offender status in his trial for first-degree rape on the
basis that he did not adequately preserve the issue for
appeal. We affirm.
Howell was arrested on April 24, 2003, and charged with
first-degree rape. On the day of his arrest, Howell applied
for youthful-offender status in the Geneva District Court,
under § 15-19-1, Ala. Code 1975.  The district court did not
1
rule on the application. On August 7, 2003, Howell was
indicted in the circuit court for the rape of G.B., a 7-year-
old girl. Howell was 16 years old or older at the time of the
incidents underlying the rape charge. § 13A-6-61(a)(3), Ala.
Code 1975. On April 21, 2005, Howell applied for youthful-
offender status in the circuit court. The circuit court
1060139
The unpublished memorandum in the Court of Criminal
2
Appeals incorrectly gives this date as May 25, 2003.
3
scheduled a hearing on Howell's application for youthful-
offender status for May 20, 2005, then rescheduled the hearing
for May 25, 2005. Howell's application for youthful-offender
status was denied on May 25, 2005,  by an order entered on the
2
case action summary.  His trial took place June 13-16, 2005,
and Howell was found guilty of rape in the first degree. The
judge sentenced him to 30 years' imprisonment. Howell's motion
for a new trial was denied on August 10, 2005, and a new
attorney was appointed to represent him.  Howell appealed the
judgment of conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeals. 
The Court of Criminal Appeals unanimously affirmed the
judgment of conviction in an unpublished memorandum. In his
appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, Howell claimed, among
other things, that denying him youthful-offender status was
improper because, he claimed, the denial was based solely on
the nature of the crime with which he was charged. The Court
of Criminal Appeals held that because Howell did not object in
the circuit court to the denial of his application for
youthful-offender status, he had not preserved that issue for
appeal. We granted certiorari review solely to examine this
1060139
4
question of first impression for this Court: whether an
objection or exception in the circuit court is necessary to
preserve for appellate review an order of the circuit court
denying a defendant's application for youthful-offender
status.
The Court of Criminal Appeals, in holding that Howell was
required to object to the denial of youthful-offender status
in the circuit court to obtain appellate review of that
adverse ruling, relied on Harris v. State, 794 So. 2d 1214
(Ala. Crim. App. 2000). The Court of Criminal Appeals stated
in Harris:
"Harris contends that the trial court abused its
discretion by arbitrarily denying his request for
youthful-offender status. Specifically, he argues
that the trial judge denied youthful-offender status
based solely on the charges themselves, without
consideration of the particular facts involved. ...
However, there is no indication in the record that
Harris objected to the trial court's denial of
youthful-offender status. Therefore, this issue was
not properly preserved for our review."
794 So. 2d at 1221. 
 
An application for youthful-offender status is merely a
printed form filed by the defendant requesting treatment as a
youthful offender and consenting to an investigation to
determine whether such treatment is warranted. The application
1060139
5
does not contain information specific to the applicant, beyond
the applicant's name and the name of the applicant's attorney,
nor does it set forth the grounds upon which the applicant
relies in seeking youthful-offender status. Although the
circuit court held a hearing on Howell's application for
youthful-offender status, there is no transcript of that
hearing in the record that would reflect Howell's contentions
in support of his application and his response to any
arguments advanced by the State in opposition to the
application.
The State contends that it is Howell's obligation to
ensure that the record on appeal is complete. We agree.
"In this case there was no transcript of the
trial court's proceedings. Thus, there was an
absolute silence on the issues reviewed by the
majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals. A
reviewing court cannot predicate error on matters
not shown by the record. Watson v. State, 398 So. 2d
320 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980) .... Indeed, a silent
record supports a judgment. Robertson v. State, 29
Ala. App. 399, 197 So. 73 (1940). It is the
appellant's duty to file a correct record. Tyus v.
State, 347 So. 2d 1377 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977) ...;
Rushing v. State, 40 Ala. App. 361, 113 So. 2d 527
(1959)."
Robinson v. State, 444 So. 2d 884, 885 (Ala. 1983). See also
Bamberg v. State, 611 So. 2d 450, 452 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)
1060139
6
("[I]f in fact the off-the-record discussion did concern the
issue the appellant now raises, it was the appellant's duty to
make a complete record on appeal. Holder v. State, 584 So. 2d
872 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)."). 
Howell has not sustained his burden of providing us with
a complete record; thus, we are unable to determine whether
Howell's contentions before the Court of Criminal Appeals in
support of his argument that the denial of youthful-offender
status was based solely on the nature of the offense were
presented at the hearing on his youthful-offender status or
were made for the first time on appeal.  Because we cannot
assume that Howell made the same arguments in the circuit
court that he now makes on appeal, we are in the same
situation as if he  had sat mute at the hearing.  In that
context, we stated in Ex parte Walker, [Ms. 1041931, March 30,
2007] ___ So. 2d ___, ___ (Ala. 2007):
"The trial court conducted a hearing, at which
Walker could have pursued this legal theory,
objected to the State's alleged lack of evidence of
probable cause to arrest, presented evidence to
support his allegation, and argued that the lack of
evidence required that his statement be suppressed.
Walker, however, remained silent; he did not pursue
this issue in the trial court; and he did not allow
the trial court the opportunity to prevent the
alleged injustice. See Adams v. State, 585 So. 2d
1060139
We are not here presented with the issue whether an
3
objection below is necessary to preserve for appellate review
the denial of youthful-offender status in a case where a
transcript of the youthful offender hearing is included in the
record and the transcript reflects that the matters asserted
on appeal were raised at the hearing. 
7
161, 164 (Ala. 1991)('Matters not objected to at
trial cannot be considered for the first time on
appeal, since review on appeal applies only to
rulings by the trial court.'). Cf. Coulliette v.
State, 857 So.2d 793, 795 (Ala. 2003)(holding that
because a specific argument raised on appeal was not
presented at suppression hearing, '"[t]he motion [to
suppress] did not give the trial court notice of the
specific issues [the defendant] ... raise[d] in his
[appellate] brief .... Therefore, the trial court
did not have the opportunity to rectify these
alleged errors .... [The defendant's] motion was not
sufficient to preserve the issues presented by [him]
in his brief."' (quoting Acree v. State, 673 So. 2d
855, 856 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995))."
Because Howell did not adequately preserve for appellate
review any error in the denial of his application for
youthful-offender status, the Court of Criminal Appeals
correctly affirmed Howell's judgment of conviction, and the
judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.3
AFFIRMED.
See, Stuart, Bolin, and Murdock, JJ., concur.
Cobb, C.J., recuses herself.