Stan Dubose v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

RELll/06/2009Dubose Notice: This 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-08-0861 Stan Dubose v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal PER from B u l l o c k C i r c u i t (CC-95-132) Court CURIAM. The appellant, Stan Dubose, a p p e a l s assault i n t h e second degree. He was s e n t e n c e d t o 15 y e a r s i n p r i s o n o n t h e a s s a u l t conviction and t o 40 degree h i s convictions f o r years and kidnapping i n prison on i n t h e second the kidnapping CR-08-0861 conviction, was the convicted sentenced appeal March transcript t h a t the of Dubose could the had we appeal First, says, one Attached the Dubose of the District Reeves. 1 1995, before responses to Mr. that the he be to deputies by the Our to trial review Court he was not obtain circuit who was sentenced. the parties the Based be those clerk's showed respond Both clerk's recorded of of the c o u l d not received dismissed. our argues State's this that not attempting reporter located. requested should filed be but Dubose a written notice o f D u b o s e ' s 1995 court record escaped assertions State not filed notified transcript the He While was consecutively. i n December 1995, 2009. Court because proceedings portion offenses 2, this completed this of the served u n t i l J a n u a r y 2009. on office s e n t e n c e s t o be on as Dubose that these to why and the request. that he did erroneously response Attorney for the Reeves's affidavit not released i s an Third escape him affidavit Judicial because, from jail. executed Circuit he -- by Ben states: "Mr. S t a n D u b o s e was c o n v i c t e d on D e c e m b e r 19, f o r a s s a u l t s e c o n d d e g r e e and k i d n a p i n g s e c o n d I n Young v. S t a t e , 518 So. 2d 822 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 7 ) , we r e l i e d on an a f f i d a v i t t o show t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t had escaped. 1 2 CR-08-0861 degree. He e s c a p e d b e f o r e he c o u l d be s e n t e n c e d a n d h a s b e e n r e s i d i n g i n F l o r i d a a n d h a s s p e n t some t i m e in state prison. He was r e t u r n e d to Alabama i n August of 2008, and on January 29, 200 9, was sentenced to ( 1 5 ) f i f t e e n years on the assault second degree, and (40) forty years on the kidnapping second degree. "Between c o n v i c t i o n and his sentencing (13) thirteen years later, the witnesses for the p r o s e c u t i o n o f D u b o s e h a v e i n d i c a t e d t h e y do not remember t h e d e t a i l s o f t h i s b r u t a l c r i m e , n e a r t o t h e e x t e n t as t o when t h e c r i m e h a p p e n e d . " B e c a u s e Dubose had f l e d j u s t i c e a l l o f t h e s e years, the S t a t e i s s e v e r e l y p r e j u d i c e d not o n l y because the transcript to his trial has been m i s p l a c e d and i t i s h a r d f o r t h e S t a t e t o d e f e n d i t s c a s e on a p p e a l a n d r e f r e s h i t s own memory o f how t h e c a s e was p r e s e n t e d , b u t a l s o S t a t e w i t n e s s e s a r e no l o n g e r w i t h the law enforcement o f f i c e t h a t made t h i s case. A l s o a f t e r s o many y e a r s , t h e w i t n e s s e s ' memory o f t h e d e t a i l s of the crime are not as strong." Also, a letter w r i t t e n by attorney i s attached states: "In filed 1996, because above State's styled response. cases Defendant ' s k i p p e d ' town documents i n the Contrary sufficient documentation jail he was to to clerk's Dubose's show c o n v i c t e d but 3 district This letter were withdrawn the escaped. after the Other sentenced." Dubose the to Judge B u r t S m i t h a r t to the prior to and being r e c o r d show that contention, there that Dubose b e f o r e he was escaped sentenced. is from CR-08-0861 " F o r over a c e n t u r y , Alabama a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have e x e r c i s e d the d i s c r e t i o n t o summarily d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l s o f t h o s e who h a v e e s c a p e d c u s t o d y w h i l e t h e i r a p p e a l s a r e p e n d i n g . ... A l t h o u g h we f i n d no Alabama Supreme Court cases summarily and u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y d i s m i s s i n g t h e p e n d i n g r e v i e w o f an e s c a p e d and r e c a p t u r e d a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n , we a l s o c a n f i n d no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t o u r s u p r e m e c o u r t would reject the p r a c t i c e of d i s m i s s i n g such a pending review. T h u s , we a g r e e w i t h t h e [ U n i t e d States Court of Appeals f o r t h e ] F i f t h C i r c u i t i n J o e n s e n v . W a i n w r i g h t , 615 F . 2 d [ 1 0 7 7 ] a t 1 0 7 9 [ ( 5 t h Cir. 1980)], that, ' I f the Supreme Court can s u m m a r i l y a n d u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y d i s m i s s an e s c a p e e ' s appeal without offending the c o n s t i t u t i o n , there i s no r e a s o n why a s t a t e c o u r t may n o t do l i k e w i s e . ' " Young A v. State, 518 few y e a r s l a t e r Crim. who App. sought 1991), So. 2d 822, 824 ( A l a . Cirm. i n Watkins v. we the escape applied postconviction State, review. We 589 So. rule App. 1987). 2d 1311 ( A l a . to a defendant stated: " I n r e v i e w i n g t h i s r e c o r d on a p p e a l , we a r e o f the o p i n i o n t h a t the f o l l o w i n g language from the United States Supreme Court i n M o l i n a r o v. New Jersey, [ 3 9 6 U.S. 365 ( 1 9 7 0 ) ] , f u l l y s u p p o r t s t h e view that this appellant became disentitled to p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f b y v i r t u e o f h i s e s c a p e . The l a n g u a g e u p o n w h i c h we now r e l y i s a s f o l l o w s : "'No persuasive reason e x i s t s why this Court should proceed to adjudicate the merits of a criminal case after the c o n v i c t e d d e f e n d a n t who h a s s o u g h t r e v i e w e s c a p e s f r o m t h e r e s t r a i n t s p l a c e d upon him p u r s u a n t t o t h e c o n v i c t i o n . W h i l e s u c h an escape does not s t r i p the case of i t s character as an adjudicable case or c o n t r o v e r s y , we b e l i e v e i t d i s e n t i t l e s t h e 4 CR-08-0861 d e f e n d a n t t o c a l l upon t h e r e s o u r c e s o f t h e Court f o r determination of h i s claims.' "For t h e r e a s o n s h e r e i n s t a t e d , t h i s a p p e a l i s due t o b e a n d t h e same i s h e r e b y d i s m i s s e d , a s we s p e c i f i c a l l y h o l d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s escape has d i s e n t i t l e d him t o a p p e l l a t e review." 589 So. 2d a t 1312-13. However, decided 365 both Young, i n 1991, r e l i e d (1970), a case that decided in 1987, on M o l i n a r o v . New and Watkins, J e r s e y , 396 U.S. was m o d i f i e d i n 1 9 9 3 b y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n O r t e g a - R o d r i g u e z v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , U.S. 234 (1993). The S u p r e m e C o u r t i n Ortega-Rodriguez 507 held: "[W]e c o n c l u d e t h a t w h i l e d i s m i s s a l o f an a p p e a l p e n d i n g w h i l e t h e d e f e n d a n t i s a f u g i t i v e may s e r v e substantial interests, t h e same i n t e r e s t s do n o t support a r u l e o f d i s m i s s a l f o r a l l appeals f i l e d by former fugitives, returned to custody before invocation of the appellate system. Absent some c o n n e c t i o n between a d e f e n d a n t ' s f u g i t i v e s t a t u s and h i s a p p e a l a s p r o v i d e d when a d e f e n d a n t i s a t l a r g e during 'the ongoing appellate process,' the j u s t i f i c a t i o n s advanced f o r d i s m i s s a l of f u g i t i v e s ' pending appeals generally w i l l not apply." 507 U.S. a t 249. Other Court states of Appeals have addressed i n State v. this Goree, issue. 11 N e b . The Nebraska App. 6 8 5 , 659 N.W.2d 344 ( 2 0 0 3 ) , g a v e a d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e i m p a c t o f 5 CR-08-0861 Ortega-Rodriguez are We on a p p e a l s w h e r e d e f e n d a n t s h a v e e s c a p e d r e t u r n e d to custody before a n o t i c e quote extensively from that well of appeal reasoned is filed. opinion: " I n O r t e g a - R o d r i g u e z v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 50 7 U.S. 234, 113 S . C t . 1199, 122 L . E d . 2 d 581 (1 9 9 3 ) , t h e U.S. S u p r e m e C o u r t was a s k e d t o c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r a d e f e n d a n t may be d e e m e d t o f o r f e i t his right to a p p e a l by f l e e i n g w h i l e h i s c a s e i s p e n d i n g i n t h e district court, though he i s recaptured before s e n t e n c i n g a n d a p p e a l . The C o u r t h e l d t h a t a r u l e r e q u i r i n g the automatic d i s m i s s a l of appeals f i l e d by former fugitives r e t u r n e d to custody before invocation of the appellate system was not j u s t i f i e d , because the defendant's former fugitive status does not necessarily have the required connection to the appellate process that would justify the appellate sanction of a dismissal. However, the Court recognized that sometimes a defendant's a c t i o n s w h i l e the case i s s t i l l pending in district c o u r t may make a m e a n i n g f u l appeal i m p o s s i b l e or o t h e r w i s e d i s r u p t or a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t the a p p e l l a t e p r o c e s s t o s u c h an e x t e n t t o s u p p o r t the a p p e l l a t e s a n c t i o n o f d i s m i s s a l . Thus, t h e C o u r t held that former fugitives returned to custody b e f o r e f i l i n g an a p p e a l g e n e r a l l y a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o dismissal o f an a p p e a l b r o u g h t after recapture, unless the defendant's flight has significantly i n t e r f e r e d w i t h the a p p e l l a t e p r o c e s s . "The bar to automatic d i s m i s s a l of appeals announced in Ortega-Rodriguez, supra, is not g r o u n d e d i n t h e f e d e r a l C o n s t i t u t i o n , b u t on t h e supervisory authority of the federal c o u r t s of a p p e a l s o v e r t h e p r o c e d u r e s t o be f o l l o w e d i n t h e f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t s . A n n o t . , 105 A . L . R . 5 t h 529 (2003). Thus, the h o l d i n g i s not b i n d i n g a u t h o r i t y for state c o u r t s a d d r e s s i n g the issue of state f u g i t i v e d i s m i s s a l r u l e s . I d . However, the h o l d i n g announced i n Ortega-Rodriguez, supra, has been 6 and CR-08-0861 a c c e p t e d by t h e j u d i c i a r y o f s e v e r a l s t a t e s . See, G r i f f i s v . S t a t e , 759 So. 2 d 668 ( F l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ( c o u r t remanded case f o r f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of whether defendant's fugitive status prior to filing of appeal caused s u f f i c i e n t l y d e t r i m e n t a l connection to a p p e l l a t e p r o c e s s to support d i s m i s s a l of a p p e a l ) ; S t a t e v . B e l l , 608 N.W.2d 232 (N.D. 2 0 0 0 ) ; B e l l o w s v . S t a t e , 110 N e v . 2 8 9 , 871 P.2d 340 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ; S t a t e v . L u n d a h l , 130 O r . A p p . 3 8 5 , 882 P.2d 644 (1 994 ) (upheld dismissal of defendant's appeal where defendant's 7-year fugitive status significantly i n t e r f e r e d w i t h a p p e l l a t e p r o c e s s ) ; S t a t e v. Brown, 116 N.M. 7 0 5 , 866 P . 2 d 1172 (App. 1 9 9 3 ) . " B o t h t h e New M e x i c o C o u r t o f A p p e a l s a n d t h e Nevada Supreme C o u r t have s p e c i f i c a l l y c o n s i d e r e d the d i l e m m a p r e s e n t e d when a d e f e n d a n t ' s fugitive s t a t u s has c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e l o s s or d e s t r u c t i o n o f r e c o r d s , and t h o s e c o u r t s have a p p l i e d t h e s t a n d a r d set f o r t h i n Ortega-Rodriguez, supra. For example, the New M e x i c o C o u r t o f A p p e a l s h a s h e l d t h a t t h e dismissal of a defendant's a p p e a l and d e n i a l of motion f o r new trial were a p p r o p r i a t e where the defendant's 13-year fugitive status significantly interfered with the o p e r a t i o n of the appellate p r o c e s s b e c a u s e t r i a l n o t e s were d e s t r o y e d 9 y e a r s after trial, in accordance with applicable r e g u l a t i o n s . Brown, s u p r a . " L i k e w i s e , t h e Nevada Supreme C o u r t has u p h e l d the d i s m i s s a l o f a d e f e n d a n t ' s a p p e a l and d e n i a l o f a defendant's motion f o r new trial where the defendant's 8-year f u g i t i v e s t a t u s r e s u l t e d i n t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t s b e i n g u n a v a i l a b l e because t h e y had been destroyed pursuant to normal procedures. B e l l o w s , supra. Adopting the rule enunciated in O r t e g a - R o d r i g u e z v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 507 U.S. 2 3 4 , 113 S.Ct. 1199, 122 L . E d . 2 d 581 (1 9 9 3 ) , t h e B e l l o w s c o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h a t not every appeal i n v o l v i n g a c o n v i c t e d d e f e n d a n t who escapes before s e n t e n c i n g requires dismissal; dismissal i s warranted only i f the escaped defendant's conduct significantly 7 CR-08-0861 interferes with the operation of the appellate p r o c e s s . The B e l l o w s c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t when a defendant's fugitive status results in a trial t r a n s c r i p t ' s l o s s or d e s t r u c t i o n , such a s u b s t a n t i a l interference with the appellate process has occurred, j u s t i f y i n g dismissal of the defendant's appeal. "Although not r e l y i n g on Ortega-Rodriguez, supra, the Utah Supreme C o u r t has h e l d that a c r i m i n a l a p p e a l may b e d i s m i s s e d i f ' " t h e S t a t e c a n show t h a t i t h a s b e e n p r e j u d i c e d b y t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s absence and t h e consequent l a p s e o f t i m e . " ' S t a t e v. Verikokides, 925 P . 2 d 1 2 5 5 , 1 2 5 6 ( U t a h 1 9 9 6 ) . I n that case, the court upheld the denial of a defendant's motion f o r new trial where the defendant's 7-year fugitive status between c o n v i c t i o n and s e n t e n c i n g i n d i r e c t l y r e s u l t e d i n t h e loss of a m a j o r i t y of the t r i a l record. "Other c o u r t s , e i t h e r w i t h o u t s p e c i f i c r e l i a n c e upon, o r p r i o r t o t h e i s s u a n c e o f , O r t e g a - R o d r i g u e z , s u p r a , have a l s o d e n i e d a d e f e n d a n t ' s r e q u e s t f o r a new t r i a l when t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a b s e n c e h a s r e s u l t e d i n t h e l o s s o r d e s t r u c t i o n o f r e c o r d s . S e e , Com. v . J o h n s o n , 764 A . 2 d 1094 ( P a . S u p e r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( d e f e n d a n t n o t e n t i t l e d t o new t r i a l where f a c t t h a t trial transcript i s unavailable was d i r e c t result of d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t u s a s f u g i t i v e f o r 10 y e a r s ) ; P e o p l e v . E v e r e t t , 224 C a l . A p p . 3 d 9 3 2 , 274 C a l . R p t r . 429 (1990) ( d e f e n d a n t ' s r e q u e s t f o r new t r i a l , based upon d e s t r u c t i o n o f t r i a l n o t e s 5 y e a r s a f t e r t r i a l , denied because loss attributable to defendant's 6 - y e a r s t a t u s a s f u g i t i v e ) ; P e o p l e v . I a c o p e l l i , 141 M i c h . A p p . 5 6 6 , 367 N.W.2d 837 ( 1 9 8 5 ) (defendant's r e q u e s t f o r new t r i a l , b a s e d u p o n l o s s o f r e c o r d s , denied because loss attributable to defendant's 9 - y e a r s t a t u s a s f u g i t i v e ) ; P e o p l e v . V a l d e z , 137 Cal.App.3d 2 1 , 187 C a l . R p t r . 65 ( 1 9 8 2 ) ( d e n i a l o f defendant's request f o r new trial upheld where defendant was fugitive f o r 11 y e a r s and trial t r a n s c r i p t was d e s t r o y e d 10 y e a r s a f t e r h i s t r i a l ) . 8 CR-08-0861 "Further, although the aforementioned cases a l l involve a f u g i t i v e status of 6 years or greater, a defendant's f u g i t i v e status f o r shorter periods of t i m e may a l s o j u s t i f y d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l o r d i s m i s s a l o f a n a p p e a l . S e e , e . g . , Wynne v . S t a t e , 831 S.W.2d 5 1 3 ( T e x . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) ( d e f e n d a n t , b y h i s f u g i t i v e s t a t u s f o r o v e r 3 1/2 y e a r s , was n o t diligent i n prosecuting h i s appeal, thereby p r o d u c i n g k i n d o f d e l a y t h a t may b e a n t i c i p a t e d t o cause l o s t i t e m s , such as l o s s o f p o r t i o n o f r e c o r d i n d e f e n d a n t ' s c a s e ) ; G a r c e s v . S t a t e , 727 S.W.2d 48 (Tex.App. 1987) ( d e f e n d a n t c o u l d n o t p r o f i t from l a c k o f d i l i g e n c e i n p r o s e c u t i n g h i s a p p e a l w h e r e he f a i l e d t o a p p e a r a t s e n t e n c i n g a n d was f u g i t i v e f o r 2 y e a r s and where d e l a y contributed to loss of r e c o r d ) ; Weeks v . S t a t e , 5 2 1 S.W.2d 858 ( T e x . C r i m . App. 1 9 7 5 ) ( d e f e n d a n t who was f u g i t i v e f o r 2 y e a r s must bear responsibility for unavailability of transcription of t r i a l ) . "We adopt the reasoning and h o l d i n g of O r t e g a - R o d r i g u e z v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 507 U.S. 2 3 4 , 113 S.Ct. 1 1 9 9 , 122 L . E d . 2 d 5 8 1 (1 9 9 3 ) , that former fugitives returned to custody before filing an a p p e a l g e n e r a l l y a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o d i s m i s s a l o f an appeal brought after recapture, unless the defendant's f l i g h t has s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t e r f e r e d w i t h the appellate process. Further, as the a f o r e m e n t i o n e d c a s e s make c l e a r , when a n a p p e a l i s f i l e d b y a f o r m e r f u g i t i v e who h a s b e e n r e t u r n e d t o custody before i n v o c a t i o n of the a p p e l l a t e system, i t i s t h e e f f e c t on t h e a p p e l l a t e p r o c e s s t h a t i s c r i t i c a l , not thedefendant's f u g i t i v e status itself or t h e l e n g t h of time that t h e d e f e n d a n t was a fugitive. "By remaining diligent producing to cause record i failing t o appear f o r sentencing and a f u g i t i v e f o r 1 1/2 y e a r s , G o r e e was n o t i n prosecuting h i s appeal, thereby t h e k i n d o f d e l a y t h a t may b e a n t i c i p a t e d l o s t i t e m s , such as t h e l o s s o f t h e t r i a l n the instant case. When a d e f e n d a n t ' s 9 CR-08-0861 fugitive status r e s u l t s i n the loss of a trial transcript, a substantial interference with the a p p e l l a t e p r o c e s s has o c c u r r e d . Goree's fugitive status 'should n o t become an excuse f o r the c o n v i c t e d t o b e g i n t h e p r o c e s s anew a t g r e a t c o s t t o the s t a t e and t h e crime v i c t i m . Defendants have a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o be v i g i l a n t i n p r e s e r v i n g their a p p e a l r i g h t s . ' S e e S t a t e v . V e r i k o k i d e s , 925 P . 2 d 1255, 1258 ( U t a h 1 9 9 6 ) . G o r e e s h o u l d n o t r e a p t h e b e n e f i t of h i s f u g i t i v e status through the gaining o f a new t r i a l d u e t o t h e l a c k o f a t r a n s c r i p t . " 11 Neb. App. a t 688-91, State, 110 N e v . 2 8 9 , 2 9 3 , 871 P . 2 d 3 4 0 , 343 appellant's he may benefit appellant escape from his to avoid 'operates attempt any n e g a t i v e proceedings.'"). See a l s o by, Fugitive Status of, Appeal or Availability Conviction United adopted (1994) v. ("Because of R e l i e f -- S t a t e States Court to elude the law. repercussions as an a f f r o n t t o t h e d i g n i t y o f court's or See B e l l o w s absence l e d t o the l o s s of h i s t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t s , not Allowing his 659 N.W.2d a t 3 4 7 - 4 9 . State Other Cases, of Appeals the f o l l o w i n g Annot., Effect Criminal from [this] of Escape Defendant Post-Verdict or 105 A . L . R . 5 t h ( 2 0 0 3 ) . f o r the Eleventh Circuit test: "[T]his Court should dismiss a former fugitive's appeal unless the defendant can s h o w t h a t : (1) g r a n t i n g t h e a p p e a l i s n o t l i k e l y t o r e s u l t i n an undue burden on the government and; (2) t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s f l i g h t has not r e s u l t e d i n nor w i l l not [sic] r e s u l t i n s i g n i f i c a n t interference with the 10 on PostThe has CR-08-0861 operation of the j u d i c i a l process in d i s t r i c t court or the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t . " United States v. Rosales, 13 F.3d 1461, either 1462-63 the (11th C i r . 1994). We now rationale join of those the jurisdictions United States that have Supreme Court adopted in the Ortega- R o d r i q u e z and h o l d t h a t , i f a d e f e n d a n t e s c a p e s a f t e r he i s convicted custody but before before he he f i l e s i s sentenced and a notice of appeal, i s returned h i s appeal to will n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y be d i s m i s s e d b e c a u s e he was once a f u g i t i v e . We must c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g : (1) whether the appeal r e s u l t i n an undue b u r d e n on t h e S t a t e ; and (2) appeal of the will interfere process" in either Rosales, supra. with the Here the "operation lower both court of answered i n the a f f i r m a t i v e . these Over or this questions 13 y e a r s will whether the judicial court. can elapsed See only be between t h e t i m e t h a t Dubose was c o n v i c t e d i n 1995 and h i s s e n t e n c i n g i n 2009. trial I t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n a t r a n s c r i p t o f Dubose's because the court c a n n o t be l o c a t e d . 2 r e p o r t e r who t r a n s c r i b e d the trial The d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y has a l s o n o t e d t h e We have h e l d t h a t a j u d g m e n t i n a c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g i s due t o be r e v e r s e d i f t h e r e c o r d o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s i n c i r c u i t 2 11 CR-08-0861 prejudice allowed to his office t o go f o r w a r d . disrespect this that will suffer Dubose c a n n o t f o r the j u d i c i a l process. i f this profit Based appeal from h i s t o t a l on t h e f a c t s i n c a s e , we h o l d t h a t Dubose f o r f e i t e d h i s s t a t u t o r y appeal his convictions. Accordingly, is this right appeal is dismissed. APPEAL DISMISSED. Wise, P . J . , and Welch, concur. Windom, K e l l u m , c o u r t c a n n o t be p r e p a r e d . See 233 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) . 12 and Main, J J . , Wesson v. S t a t e , 594 So. 2d

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.