Ray Anthony Coats v. State of Alabama
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL 11/02/2007 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. ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2007-2008 _________________________ CR-06-1686 _________________________ Ray Anthony Coats v. State of Alabama Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court (CC-87-79) BASCHAB, PRESIDING JUDGE AFFIRMED BY UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM. McMillan, Shaw, and dissents, with opinion. WELCH, JUDGE, dissenting. Wise, JJ., concur; Welch, J., CR-06-1686 Ray Anthony Coats was convicted in March 1987 of firstdegree robbery. life He was sentenced as a habitual offender to imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On September 25, 2006, Coats filed a motion for reconsideration of his sentence pursuant to § 13A-5-9.1, Ala. Code 1975. Without requiring a response from the State, the circuit court denied the motion. In its order denying Coats's motion to reconsider, the trial court stated: "This matter is before the Court on [Coats's] Petition to modify his sentence pursuant to § 13A-59.1, Code of Alabama, 1975. [Coats] is presently serving a sentence of Life Without Parole as a Habitual Offender following his 1st degree robbery conviction. "Under this statute only those who are 'nonviolent offenders' are eligible for consideration. See Kirby v. State, 899 So.2d 968 (Ala. 2004). The statute in question fails to define a crime of violence that would exclude a defendant from its consideration, so the Court looks to other statutes for guidance. Alabama Code § 13A11-70 et. seq. includes among its defined 'crimes of violence,' the crime of robbery. In this case, [Coats] was convicted of robbery in the 1st degree. The Court finds that [Coats] does not meet the requirement of a 'nonviolent offender' and is therefore precluded from consideration under this statute. Defendant's Request for Relief is DENIED." (R. 20-21.) 2 CR-06-1686 This Court stated in Holt v. State, 960 So. 2d 726 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006), that the fact that a crime is statutorily defined as a "violent offense" is not binding on a circuit court in determining whether an inmate is a nonviolent offender and that merely because an inmate has committed an offense defined definitions offender. does as violent not mean that in the that general inmate is statutory a violent This Court further stated that while it would find no abuse of discretion if a circuit court determined after considering all the factors presented to it that an inmate who had been convicted of first-degree robbery was a violent offender, a circuit court could not find an inmate to be a violent offender based solely on the fact that he had been convicted of an offense statutorily defined as a "violent offense." From the circuit court's order in the instant case, it appears that the court based its decision solely on the fact that Coats had been convicted of an offense statutorily defined as a "violent offense" and, thus, found that Coats was precluded from consideration of a new sentence. When ruling on motions for reconsideration, a circuit court often has only 3 CR-06-1686 the underlying conviction before it on which to base ruling. its This Court has repeatedly affirmed those judgments. In those instances, however, either the circuit court also examined the facts of the underlying offense or there was nothing in the record to suggest that the circuit court had refused to consider all the information presented to it in determining that the inmate was a violent offender. In this case, although the circuit court did not state that it could not consider other information before it, the court appeared to conclude that Coats was precluded from sentence reconsideration because he had been convicted of an offense statutorily accordance defined with as Holt, a violent supra, I offense. would Therefore, reverse the in circuit court's judgment and remand this case for the circuit court to set aside its order denying Coats's motion for reconsideration and to consider Coats's motion pursuant to this Court's ruling in Holt. Thus, I must respectfully dissent. 1 1 In its brief to the court, the State concedes that the circuit court erred; however, it argues that the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling in Ex parte Gunn, [Ms. 1051754, September 21, 2007] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. 2007), allows this Court to affirm the circuit court's judgment because, the State argues, the circuit court was not required to even consider Coat's second motion for reconsideration. In Ex parte Gunn, the Alabama Supreme Court, overruling Wells v. 4 CR-06-1686 State, 941 So. 2d 1008 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005), held that the circuit court did have jurisdiction to consider successive motions for sentence reconsideration. The Court noted, however, that its opinion should not be construed as requiring trial courts to consider successive motions for reconsideration under § 13A-5-9.1, Ala. Code 1975, nor was it reaching the question whether the statute requires such a consideration. I do not find it necessary to reach that question in the instant case because the circuit court did consider Coats's second motion to reconsider and denied that motion based solely on the fact that Coats had been convicted of an offense statutorily defined as a "violent offense." 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
