Title: Ex parte State of Alabama. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: State of Alabama v. Mark Dewayne Adams)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1070920
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: March 6, 2009

REL:03/06/2009
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, 2008-2009
____________________
1070920
____________________
Ex parte State of Alabama
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
(In re: State of Alabama
v.
Mark Dewayne Adams)
(Morgan Circuit Court , CC-06-185;
Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-06-1184)
BOLIN, Justice.
Mark Dewayne Adams was indicted for felony driving under
the influence of alcohol ("DUI") after having been convicted
1070920
The parties stipulated that Adams had the following prior
1
convictions: (1) a November 8, 1990, conviction in the Athens
municipal court; (2) a June 26, 1991, conviction in the
Limestone County district court; (3) an April 2, 1992,
conviction in the Athens municipal court; and (4) a March 3,
2003, conviction in the Falkville municipal court.  
2
three or more times of DUI, a violation of § 32-5A-191(h),
Ala. Code 1975.   Before trial, his counsel presented oral
1
motions based on the following arguments: (1) that the circuit
court did not have jurisdiction because the current offense
was not a felony due to the fact that three of Adams's four
prior DUI convictions were in the municipal court; (2) that,
if the circuit court did have jurisdiction, three of the four
prior convictions could not be used to elevate the current
offense to a felony because those convictions were in the
municipal court; and (3) that two of the three municipal court
convictions could not be used for enhancement for the
additional reason that they were outside the five-year period
specified in the 2006 amendment to § 32-5A-191.  The circuit
court entered a written order stating that "the prior DUI
municipal court convictions cannot be used to enhance pursuant
to the holding in [Ex parte Betram, 884 So. 2d 889 (Ala.
2003)]."  The State appealed.  A majority of the Court of
Criminal Appeals dismissed the State's appeal on the ground
1070920
3
that the State did not have the right to appeal from the
circuit court's ruling because the circuit court did not
dismiss the charge.  State v. Adams, [No. CR-06-1184, February
1, 2008]     So. 3d     (Ala. Crim. App. 2008).  We granted
certiorari review in order to determine whether the Court of
Criminal Appeals erred in dismissing the State's appeal.  
In Alabama, the State has a limited right to appeal in a
criminal case.  See §§ 12-12-70, 12-22-90, and 12-22-91, and
Rule 15.7, Ala. R. Crim. P.  The State can appeal a pretrial
ruling 
holding 
a 
statute 
unconstitutional, 
suppressing
evidence, dismissing the charges, quashing an arrest or search
warrant, or granting a habeas corpus petition and ordering an
individual released from custody.  Rule 15.7 governs pretrial
appeals by the State, and it provides for an appeal to the
Court of Criminal Appeals from a pretrial order of the circuit
court "dismissing an indictment, information, or complaint (or
any part of an indictment, information, or complaint) ...." 
In the present case, the indictment charged that Adams
"did drive or was in actual physical control of a
vehicle on, to-wit: September 3, 2005, while under
the influence of alcohol to a degree which rendered
him incapable of safely driving, and having been
convicted three (3) or more times of driving under
1070920
The circuit court apparently based its determination on
2
this Court's decision in Ex parte Bertram, 884 So. 2d 889
(Ala. 2003).  However, as Judge Welch aptly points out in his
dissent, this Court in Ex parte Bertram did not address the
issue of the applicability for enhancement purposes of
municipal court DUI convictions; rather, this Court held in Ex
parte Bertram that out-of-state DUI convictions cannot be used
for DUI enhancement purposes under § 32-5A-191.
4
the influence, in violation of Section 32-5A-191(h)
of the Code of Alabama."
The circuit court's order effectively eliminated that portion
of the indictment noting Adams's municipal DUI convictions.
As Judge Welch stated in his dissent to the Court of Criminal
Appeals' unpublished memorandum, which Judge Wise joined:
"[T]he court's order had the effect of dismissing that portion
of the indictment charging Adams with a felony offense." ___
So. 3d at ___.  The circuit court's order prohibits the State
from pursuing a felony DUI conviction because the court
determined that Adams's prior DUI convictions could not be
used for enhancement purposes.   By not treating the circuit
2
court's order as dismissing that portion of the indictment
charging Adams with a felony, the Court of Criminal Appeals
has denied the State appellate review of the merits of the
circuit court's pretrial order prohibiting the use of the
prior DUI convictions for enhancement purposes.  Because the
1070920
In Marshall v. State, [Ms. CR-07-0004, April 4, 2008] ___
3
So. 3d     (Ala. Crim. App. 2008), the Court of Criminal
Appeals overruled Davis to the extent Davis provided that when
the dismissal of a felony DUI leaves a misdemeanor DUI
remaining to be resolved, the circuit court had the option of
transferring the case to the district court for disposition of
the misdemeanor charge.  In Marshall, the Court of Criminal
Appeals specifically held that a circuit court retains
exclusive jurisdiction of a misdemeanor DUI offense when the
State fails to prove the necessary prior DUI convictions to
elevate the offense to a felony.  This Court affirmed the
judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Ex parte
Marshall, [Ms. 1071243, February 27, 2009]     So. 3d   
(Ala. 2009). 
5
circuit 
court 
retains 
jurisdiction over the remaining
misdemeanor charges following the dismissal of a felony DUI
charge, Davis v. State, 806 So. 2d 404 (Ala. Crim. App.
2001),  the circuit court is not necessarily obligated to
3
dismiss the entire indictment.  Based on the Court of Criminal
Appeals' decision, the State is left without recourse in
seeking appellate review of the circuit court's pretrial order
dismissing that portion of the indictment that elevates
Adams's DUI charge to a felony DUI charge.    
Based on the foregoing, we hold that the Court of
Criminal Appeals erred in dismissing the State's appeal on the
ground that the circuit court did not "dismiss" the charge,
and we remand the cause to that court for proceedings
consistent with this opinion.          
1070920
6
     REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Cobb, C.J., and Woodall, Stuart, Smith, Parker, and
Murdock, JJ., concur.
Lyons, J., dissents.
Shaw, J., recuses himself.*
*Justice Shaw was a member of the Court of Criminal
Appeals when that court considered this case.
1070920
7
LYONS, Justice (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.  Based on the reasoning in my
dissent in Ex parte Marshall, [Ms. 1071243, February 27, 2009]
___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2009) (Lyons, J., dissenting), I
would affirm the order of the Court of Criminal Appeals
dismissing the State's appeal in this case.