James Albert Ragland v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 12/18/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 CR-08-0729 James A l b e r t Ragland v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal WELCH, from Etowah C i r c u i t (CC-03-1109.60) Court Judge. James Albert Ragland summary d e n i a l o f h i s R u l e appeals from the circuit 3 2 , A l a . R. C r i m . court's P., p e t i t i o n f o r postconviction relief. The p e t i t i o n c h a l l e n g e d R a g l a n d ' s June 11, f o r murder 2007, convictions and attempted murder. On CR-08-0729 A u g u s t 13, 2007, sentenced the t r i a l Ragland to c o n v i c t i o n ; i t then court issued 20 prison the murder s e r v e 5 y e a r s f o l l o w e d by 5 y e a r s o f s u p e r v i s e d p r o b a t i o n . In in prison that 5 order the t r i a l o f 20 y e a r s stated: Sentencing Court Ragland conviction; to serve On t o 20 y e a r s i t then 3 years October "[T]he i n prison Court Standards. f o r each has r e v i e w e d 12, twenty (20) years." o r i g i n a l ) Ragland November issued 26, 2007. on N o v e m b e r (CR. appealed, The 26, and CONSIDERED on J u l y following 18, 2008. claims: that for a 23; Capitalization was certificate THE that term in d i s m i s s e d on of judgment was 2007. The i n s t a n t R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , filed BY of the Court and h i s a p p e a l Court's The and c o n s i d e r e d t h e SENTENCE 22 the t o s e r v e two [ R a g l a n d ] be i m p r i s o n e d i n t h e S t a t e P e n i t e n t i a r y of 2007, conviction. I t i s therefore, a n d i t i s t h e JUDGMENT AND split f o l l o w e d by court entered orders resentencing Ragland terms orders o r d e r i n g Ragland of supervised probation. circuit full court sentenced on t h e a t t e m p t e d - m u r d e r sentence, years sentence, on to same that in i n which i t o r d e r i n g Ragland that split years an o r d e r Ragland's first, In the p e t i t i o n , Ragland the d i d not trial 2 court was deemed raised the have the CR-08-0729 authority to resentence him; that and attempted murder a r i s i n g out the Double Jeopardy C l a u s e ; that jurisdiction trial court fines and c o u r t was to the to impose exceeded Crime without his counsel counsel did a to amend h i s had rendered not object to sentence. Ragland object prejudiced his the errors, claim without was afforded the d i d not by imposing excessive and him that t o pay and trial the Alabama 2008, Ragland alleging that assistance State's i n such the the assessments to petition, maintained have that November 19, 32 violated imposed; Fund because his motion vacate his that to this failure a manner t h a t , but outcome to for to hearing. State alleging that petition, erroneously the court murder i t ineffective 2008, the Ragland's was trial t h e r e would have been a d i f f e r e n t D e c e m b e r 1, was Rule defense probation-revocation On On for same a c t i o n s hearing; Compensation split counsel's the j u r i s d i c t i o n to order Victims a motion of the sentences Crime Compensation Commission. filed convictions its jurisdiction restitution without the his any basis, entered by that the opportunity filed a motion Ragland's Ragland's trial court, to withdraw h i s 3 to dismiss double-jeopardy initial and that guilty sentence Ragland plea and CR-08-0729 chose not to claim that the judgment or the The trial is now by Rule also without trial The to at Ragland entered failed his t o do or he on could guilty so. or Ragland's and under to and had impose that been t h a t R a g l a n d had Rule have plea, at Ragland entered and those sentencing, However, the S t a t e d i d not ineffective-assistance-of-counsel on in guilty when appeal, address claim because adversely claims or from claims his were d e c i d e d raised not 32.2(a)(3) ( 3 ) , ( 4 ) , and/or ( 5 ) appeal the presented State a l l e g e d that Ragland's 32.2(a)(2), sentencing, basis court ordered sentencing that jurisdiction any t h e y were r a i s e d e i t h e r at the time plea, alleged without precluded asserting that claim. were b a r r e d was court before and State c o u r t was amount t h e trial objected so. sentence restitution to do he and Ragland's his amended petition. On January 26, 2009, the circuit holding that Ragland's double-jeopardy in law or fact and "that the court issued c l a i m was other matters an order without basis of defendant claims d e a l w i t h e r r o r s i n the sentencing of the defendant subsequent of of the offenses in question." to h i s plea (C. 4 36.) guilty The which the procedure as to circuit each court CR-08-0729 further stated entered erroneously the in sentences opportunity i t s order were the The trial and was court court restitution failed lacked held that the and of grounds Rule 32.2(a)(2), court did not claim asserted appeal, sentences denied appeal, trial was State afforded Finally, addressed court (4), the was and by the in the Ragland declined over the precluded the that or to the The presented with Ragland had Rule 3 2 . 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) from circuit (5). to trial offenses. that i t s order and/or court was held that precluded However, the by trial ineffective-assistance-of-counsel amended Ragland r a i s e s the effective the the i n Ragland's the When i n f a c t or law because i s now address vacated. render judgment sentencing (3), violate the basis to before claim. were that Ragland's claim jurisdiction that sentences t o be Ragland also held without matters each On had exclusive jurisdiction to o b j e c t asserting initial t h e r e a f t e r r e s e n t e n c e d by c i r c u i t court c o u r t had circuit therefore, vacated, i m p o s e a s e n t e n c e was trial the to withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a s . withdraw his pleas court. and, that Double petition. following i s s u e s : that Jeopardy assistance of maintains that 5 Clause counsel. summary and In that he i t s brief dismissal his was on of CR-08-0729 Ragland's petition was assistance-of-counsel v. Washington, challenges State 466 proper, that claim U.S. Ragland's i s meritless 668 (1984), under 32.2(a)(3) that Ragland's claims are the Double Jeopardy the under Rule One Clause because i m p o s i n g two s e n t e n c e s revoke Initially, Ragland's Finally, barred Ragland c l a i m s t h a t the sentences imposed expressly Ragland's and ( 5 ) . Claim order Strickland that and to to h i s sentences are also m e r i t l e s s . alleges violate ineffective- Ragland's we note on r e s e n t e n c i n g the t r i a l court's o f 20 y e a r s i m p r i s o n m e n t d i d not two p r e v i o u s s p l i t that we doubt the sentences. soundness of a s s e r t i o n t h a t he i s e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f b e c a u s e h i s " r e s e n t e n c i n g " v i o l a t e d h i s r i g h t t o be f r e e f r o m b e i n g p l a c e d i n double jeopardy. 2004) , and Ex 2 0 0 5 ) (examples See Ex p a r t e Robey, 920 So. 2d 1069 ( A l a . parte of double Benefield, jeopardy 932 So. affecting N e v e r t h e l e s s , we n e e d n o t a d d r e s s R a g l a n d ' s 2d 92 (Ala. jurisdiction). c l a i m i n terms o f double jeopardy. The c l a i m , as an i l l e g a l s e n t e n c e c l a i m -¬ a c h a l l e n g e exempt -¬ jurisdictional entitles Ragland to r e l i e f . from procedural bars See G i n n v. S t a t e , 6 894 So. 2d CR-08-0729 793, 796 ( A l a . C r i m . App. sentence We is jurisdictional 2004)("[A] c h a l l e n g e t o an and can be r a i s e d a t any time."). f u r t h e r n o t e t h a t t h e c l a i m t h a t t h e O c t o b e r 12, 2007, r e s e n t e n c i n g s were n e c e s s a r y t o c o r r e c t t h e i l l e g a l i m p o s e d on A u g u s t The illegal sentences 13, 2007, i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by i m p o s e d on A u g u s t sentences the r e c o r d . 13, 2007, s e n t e n c i n g R a g l a n d t o 20 y e a r s i n p r i s o n f o r e a c h c o n v i c t i o n , t h e n s p l i t t i n g the sentences to 5 years w i t h 5 years of s u p e r v i s e d p r o b a t i o n f o r t h e m u r d e r c o n v i c t i o n and 3 y e a r s w i t h 5 y e a r s o f s u p e r v i s e d probation sentences. Class A for the See § felony); attempted-murder 13A-6-5(c), conviction, A l a . Code and (murder § 1 3 A - 4 - 2 ( d ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975 murder i s a C l a s s A f e l o n y ) ; § 13A-5-6(a), years i s w i t h i n 1975 were the s e n t e n c i n g range § 1 5 - 1 8 - 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975 legal is a (attempted A l a . Code 1975 for a Class A (20 felony); (explanation of a split sentence). Henderson 2000), from v. State, is dispositive 766 So. 217 issue. of t h i s 2d We ( A l a . Crim. quote extensively Henderson: "Leon Dawson H e n d e r s o n a p p e a l s t h e circuit c o u r t ' s summary d e n i a l o f h i s R u l e 32, A l a . R. C r i m . P., p e t i t i o n f o r p o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f . The p e t i t i o n c h a l l e n g e d h i s A u g u s t 5, 1997, p r o b a t i o n r e v o c a t i o n . 7 App. CR-08-0729 The r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t H e n d e r s o n was c o n v i c t e d o f f i r s t - d e g r e e r o b b e r y and f i r s t - d e g r e e b u r g l a r y on A u g u s t 6, 1996. The t r i a l c o u r t s e n t e n c e d H e n d e r s o n t o 15 y e a r s i m p r i s o n m e n t ; t h a t s e n t e n c e was split p u r s u a n t t o § 15-18-8, A l a . Code 1975, and he was ordered to serve 3 years w i t h the remainder of the s e n t e n c e t o be s e r v e d on s u p e r v i s e d p r o b a t i o n . On A u g u s t 5, 1997, a f t e r the t r i a l court received n o t i c e from the Alabama Department of C o r r e c t i o n s of c e r t a i n d i s c i p l i n a r i e s a g a i n s t Henderson, the Court unilaterally revoked Henderson's probation. Henderson d i d not f i l e a d i r e c t appeal from the revocation. I n h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , Henderson a s s e r t s t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t l a c k e d a u t h o r i t y to revoke Henderson's p r o b a t i o n w i t h o u t compliance w i t h t h e minimum due p r o c e s s r e q u i r e m e n t s o f A r m s t r o n g v. S t a t e , 294 A l a . 100, 312 So. 2d 620 (1975), as i n c o r p o r a t e d i n R u l e 27, A l a . R. C r i m . P. In summarily denying Henderson's p e t i t i o n f o r r e l i e f , the t r i a l c o u r t wrote: "'The Petitioner alleges in his p e t i t i o n t h a t t h i s Court f a i l e d to provide t h e P e t i t i o n e r w i t h due process before revoking his probation. Accordingly, the Petitioner alleges that his probation s h o u l d be r e i n s t a t e d . "'Unlike Code o f A l a b a m a , Section 15-22-54(d)(2), which r e q u i r e s the Court to conduct a hearing before revoking a Defendant's p r o b a t i o n , S e c t i o n 15-18-8(c) provides, i n pertinent part: "'"Regardless of whether the D e f e n d a n t has begun s e r v i n g t h e minimum p e r i o d of confinement ordered under the p r o v i s i o n s of subsection (a) t h e C o u r t s h a l l r e t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n and a u t h o r i t y t h r o u g h o u t s a i d ... period 8 CR-08-0729 and the Court probation." may revoke "'This Court therefore finds that i t did have jurisdiction t o render the j u d g m e n t a n d t o impose t h e s e n t e n c e a n d t h a t no p u r p o s e w o u l d be s e r v e d b y a n y further proceedings herein. I t i s therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED t h a t s a i d P e t i t i o n be a n d t h e same h e r e b y i s DENIED.' " ( C . 22.) H e n d e r s o n R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . appeals from t h i s d e n i a l o f h i s "On a p p e a l , H e n d e r s o n r e s t a t e s t h e a r g u m e n t made i n h i s p e t i t i o n . The S t a t e a g r e e s w i t h H e n d e r s o n a n d a s k s t h i s c o u r t t o remand t h e c a u s e t o t h e t r i a l court i n order f o r that court t o hold a probation r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h A r m s t r o n g . The a p p e l l a n t and t h e S t a t e a r e c o r r e c t . " I n L e o n a r d v. S t a t e , 686 So. 2d 554 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 6 ) , t h i s c o u r t a n s w e r e d a s i m i l a r q u e s t i o n as f o l l o w s : " ' W h i l e t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d have a u t h o r i t y to revoke the a p p e l l a n t ' s p r o b a t i o n , the trial court could not properly do s o w i t h o u t m e e t i n g t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 27 [ A l a . R . C r i m . P . ] When a s p l i t s e n t e n c e i s imposed and t h e p e r i o d for filing a p e t i t i o n t o modify a sentence has e x p i r e d , i n order f o r the t r i a l court t o revoke p r o b a t i o n a n d impose t h e o r i g i n a l s e n t e n c e o f i m p r i s o n m e n t , t h e p r o c e d u r a l due p r o c e s s r i g h t s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t must be p r o t e c t e d ; t h e c o u r t must c o n d u c t a p r o p e r p r o b a t i o n revocation proceeding.' " L e o n a r d v. S t a t e , 686 So. 2d a t 556. 9 CR-08-0729 "For the r e a s o n s s t a t e d above, the judgment of the t r i a l c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h i s cause i s remanded f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s consistent with t h i s o p i n i o n . As we c a u t i o n e d i n L e o n a r d , s h o u l d p r o p e r p r o b a t i o n r e v o c a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s be i n i t i a t e d and should the t r i a l court subsequently revoke H e n d e r s o n ' s p r o b a t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d make w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s s t a t i n g i t s reasons f o r revoking p r o b a t i o n and t h e e v i d e n c e i t r e l i e d upon i n d o i n g s o . R u l e 2 7 . 6 ( f ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P.; L e o n a r d v S t a t e , supra." H e n d e r s o n , 766 200, for So. 2d a t 218-19; see V o g e l v S t a t e , 543 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989)(probation r e v o c a t i o n where r e c i p i e n t t e r m s o f p r o b a t i o n by still a new petition sentence of a s p l i t committing the reasons j u d g m e n t as t o t h i s revoke set c l a i m was Ragland's process. violated o f f e n c e w h i l e he split initiate revocation above, error. probation Accordingly, original forth sentence Ragland effective is reinstated. The was sentence). circuit trial court's court could a f f o r d i n g him entitled The to State due have is his free to proceedings. Claim Ragland the without 2d filed s e r v i n g i n c a r c e r a t i o n p o r t i o n of h i s s p l i t For not officer So. also claims assistance of on Two appeal counsel that because his he was attorney n o t h i n g " d u r i n g r e s e n t e n c i n g , d i d not o b j e c t , d i d not 10 denied "did appeal, CR-08-0729 and t o l d R a g l a n d t h a t for trial Because he would Ragland " i f he a t t e m p t e d t o w i t h d r a w h i s p l e a get l i f e . " prevailed as (Ragland's to claim one, brief at above, 3.) this a r g u m e n t becomes moot. For the the reasons s t a t e d trial court i s reversed, i n "claim and t h i s further proceedings consistent with one," t h e judgment o f cause this i s remanded f o r opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Wise, J., concurs P . J . , and K e l l u m i n the and Main, result. 11 J J . ,concur. Windom,

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.