Opinion ID: 1759608
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Vagueness Analysis

Text: The State also argues that § 13A-5-9.1 is unconstitutionally vague because it provides that only a nonviolent convicted offender is entitled to retroactive application of § 13A-5-9, but it does not provide any standards for determining which inmates can be classified as nonviolent convicted offenders. The State also argues that the statute is vague because it does not define the factors that should be taken into account in determining who is eligible for resentencing under the statute. Finally, the State argues that the statute is vague because it does not make clear which entity should decide whether an inmate is a nonviolent convicted offender within the meaning of § 13A-5-9.1. Kirby argues that the language of the statute provides reasonably clear standards to guide the trial courts, the DOC, and the Parole Board in deciding which offenders are entitled to resentencing. Because § 13A-5-9.1 sufficiently narrows the class of people to whom it applies, Kirby argues, its language is not unconstitutionally vague. It is well established that the Legislature may delegate the power to execute and administer the laws, so long as in so doing it provides reasonably clear standards governing the execution and administration of the statute. Folsom v. Wynn, 631 So.2d 890, 894 (Ala.1993). Reading § 13A-5-9.1 in conjunction with § 13A-5-9, it is clear that a sentencing judge or a presiding judge can resentence only two narrowly defined classes of habitual offenders: those who had been sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole under the mandatory provisions of the HFOA upon conviction of a Class A felony with no prior Class A felony convictions; and those who had been sentenced to life imprisonment under the mandatory provisions of the HFOA upon conviction of a Class B felony. Moreover, of those habitual offenders, the judge can resentence only those who are nonviolent offenders. We conclude that the state's trial judges have the authority under the statute to determine whether a defendant is a nonviolent offender and that those judges are competent to make that determination based upon the nature of the defendant's underlying conviction, other factors brought before the judge in the record of the case, and information submitted to the judge by the DOC and the Parole Board concerning the inmate's behavior while incarcerated. It is axiomatic that only the sentencing judge or the presiding judge should evaluate the inmate's crime and his or her conduct associated with that crime in deciding whether the inmate is a nonviolent offender, just as the judge evaluated those factors at the time the inmate was originally sentenced. Another factor in determining whether the inmate is a nonviolent offender, however, should be a consideration of the inmate's conduct while incarcerated, which knowledge is within the purview of the DOC. Section 13A-5-9.1 provides that the DOC will conduct an evaluation of the inmate's performance while incarcerated and submit its evaluation to the court so the judge can take that information into account in determining whether the inmate is eligible for reconsideration of his or her sentence. Although § 13A-5-9.1 is not a model of clarity, it does provide reasonably clear standards for its execution and administration; therefore, the trial court erred in declaring it unconstitutional. We note that one of the problems Kirby encountered in getting his motion for reconsideration of his sentence heard in the trial court was the failure of the DOC to provide that court with the evaluation contemplated by § 13A-5-9.1. While the information available to the court in the DOC's evaluation will be helpful in making its determination, we conclude that the administration of § 13A-5-9 requires that if the DOC does not provide the evaluation in a timely fashion, the State will have waived any input as to the inmate's conduct while incarcerated that the sentencing judge or the presiding judge might otherwise have considered in determining whether the inmate is a nonviolent offender. In Rice v. English, 835 So.2d 157 (Ala. 2002), we discussed the judiciary's authority to review legislative acts, quoting Judge Learned Hand's caution that judicial review `need not be exercised whenever a court sees, or thinks that it sees, an invasion of the Constitution.' 835 So.2d at 163 (quoting Learned Hand, The Bill of Rights: The Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures, 1958, 10-11 (Harvard University Press 1958)). In holding that § 13A-5-9.1 is not unconstitutional, we adhere to the admonition of this Court in Ex parte Selma & Gulf R.R., 45 Ala. 696 (1871), that we should refrain from exercising the power of judicial review unless some express clause of the constitution was clearly disregarded.  45 Ala. at 728 (emphasis added). We therefore decline the State's request to invoke what Judge Hand described as `no doubt a dangerous liberty, not lightly to be resorted to.' 835 So.2d at 163, quoting L. Hand, at 29. No basis exists for further delay of the retroactive application of the 2000 amendment to § 13A-5-9 to allow trial courts to modify the sentences of those eligible inmates formerly sentenced under the HFOA before its amendment.