Title: Ex parte Joe Bennett.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1140293
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: February 27, 2015

Rel: 2/27/15
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, 2014-2015
____________________
1140293
____________________
Ex parte Joe Bennett
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
(In re: Joe Bennett
v.
State of Alabama)
(Jefferson Circuit Court, CC-98-1737 and CC-98-1738;
Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-13-1612)
BRYAN, Justice.
WRIT DENIED.  NO OPINION.
1140293
Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Shaw, Main, and Wise,
JJ., concur.
Moore, C.J., dissents.
2
1140293
MOORE, Chief Justice (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from this Court's decision to deny
the petition for the writ of certiorari.  Joe Bennett, the
petitioner, was sentenced as a habitual felony offender to
life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for two
convictions in 1999 for first-degree robbery.  On March 6,
2014, Bennett filed a motion for sentence reconsideration
pursuant to § 13A–5-9.1, Ala. Code 1975 (repealed effective
March 13, 2014, see Act No. 2014-165, Ala. Acts 2014)(a motion
for sentence reconsideration is often referred to as a "Kirby
motion" in light of this Court's decision in Kirby v. State,
899 So. 2d 968 (Ala. 2004)).  According to the unpublished
memorandum of the Court of Criminal Appeals, "the circuit
court 
dismissed 
Bennett's 
motion 
[for 
sentence]
reconsideration based on its determination that 'Robbery 1st
is a violent felony.'"  I believe the circuit court erred in
dismissing, and the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in
affirming, Bennett v. State (No. CR-13-1612, November 14,
2014), ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2014)(table), Bennett's
motion for sentence reconsideration based solely on the
3
1140293
statutory definition of Bennett's underlying offense as
violent. 
Two justices, writing for the Court, recently recognized
that "'whether an inmate is a "nonviolent convicted offender"
is based on the totality of the circumstances.'" Ex parte
Harper, [Ms. 1130496, February 13, 2015] ___ So. 3d ___, ___
(Ala. 2015)(quoting Holt v. State, 960 So. 2d 726, 738 (Ala.
Crim. App. 2006)).  The opinion noted that the Court of
Criminal Appeals' decision in "Holt prohibits circuit courts
from ruling on Kirby motions based solely on the statutory
designation of the inmate's underlying offense." ___ So. 3d at
___.
"[I]t is clear that the Court of Criminal Appeals in
Holt did not intend to authorize or validate what it
characterized as 'an erroneous interpretation of §
13A-5-9.1 and Kirby,' namely, 'that anyone convicted
of an offense statutorily defined as a 'violent
offense' is, as a matter of law, a 'violent
offender' for the purposes of § 13A-5-9.1, and,
thus, ineligible for sentence reconsideration. Holt,
960 So. 2d at 740. ...
"'If 
the 
Alabama 
Supreme 
Court 
had
construed § 13A-5-9.1 as a bright-line rule
precluding 
any 
inmate 
who 
had 
been
convicted 
of 
an 
offense 
statutorily 
defined
as a "violent offense" from sentence
reconsideration, the Court would have
instructed circuit courts to look no
4
1140293
further than the statutory designation of
the inmate's underlying offense.'
"Holt, 960 So. 2d at 737. The fact that one commits
a violent offense or 'crime of violence,' as that
term is defined in § 13A-11-70(2), Ala. Code 1975,
does not forever prohibit one from being considered
a 'nonviolent convicted offender' for the purpose of
§ 13A-5-9.1. The plain language of § 13A-5-9.1 does
not ask whether the crime the offender committed was
a violent crime; rather, the statute asks whether
the convicted offender is nonviolent."
Harper, ___ So. 3d at ___.  "Although it is appropriate for a
circuit court to consider whether the offense committed by an
inmate seeking reconsideration of his or her sentence is
statutorily defined as a 'violent offense,' this fact alone
does not necessarily render an inmate a violent convicted
offender."  Ex parte Gill, [Ms. 1130649, June 20, 2014] ___
So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2014)(Moore, C.J., dissenting).
Bennett is not forever a "violent convicted offender"
solely because he was convicted twice for first-degree
robbery, which is classified as a violent offense.  Therefore,
I would grant Bennett's petition for a writ of certiorari and
remand the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals with
instructions for that court to remand the case for the circuit
court 
to 
reconsider 
Bennett's 
motion 
for 
sentence
reconsideration, as this Court did in Harper. "[T]he window
5
1140293
for the review of Kirby motions has been closing since the
repeal of § 13A-5-9.1.," and Bennett, like the petitioner in
Harper, who was also "faced with his last opportunity to take
advantage of  § 13A-5-9.1," is entitled to a reconsideration
of his sentence in light of the totality of the circumstances,
including his behavior during his incarceration.  Harper, ___
So. 3d at ___. 
6