State of Alabama v. Chantnell Denise Robertson

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 10/09/2009 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-08-0903 S t a t e o f Alabama v. C h a n t n e l l Denise Robertson Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CC-07-4) Court WELCH, J u d g e . The S t a t e o f A l a b a m a a p p e a l s the c i r c u i t court's d i s m i s s a l o f a charge o f d i s o r d e r l y conduct. Ala. R. C r i m . P. A Montgomery County grand pretrial See R u l e 1 5 . 7 , jury charged CR-08-0903 Chantnell Denise Robertson w i t h r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t , a v i o l a t i o n of § 13A-10-41, A l a . Code 1975; disorderly conduct, a v i o l a t i o n o f § 13A-11-7, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ; c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f i n the s e c o n d d e g r e e , a v i o l a t i o n o f § 13A-7-22, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ; and h a r a s s m e n t , a v i o l a t i o n of § 13A-11-8(a), A l a . Code 1975. Robertson pleaded g u i l t y to a l l charges, but, a t the g u i l t y p l e a h e a r i n g , h e l d on A u g u s t 9, 2 0 0 7 , t h e t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t t h e r e was no f a c t u a l b a s i s f o r t h e p l e a s o f g u i l t y t o t h e charges of d i s o r d e r l y refused t o accept Robertson's trial court Robertson's conduct d i s m i s s e d those pleas of of charges. On the arrest pleas t o those charges. guilty m i s c h i e f and harassment. dismissal and r e s i s t i n g to the The charges. court charges that t h e r e was guilty t o those no d i s o r d e r l y - c o n d u c t and Court the charges factual charges. criminal The S t a t e a p p e a l e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s appeal, t h i s i n dismissing The accepted of resisting-arrest reversed the t r i a l d i s m i s s a l of those charges, h o l d i n g that the t r i a l erred and i t basis based c o u r t had on i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n f o r Robertson's S t a t e v. R o b e r t s o n , 2 court's pleas of 8 So. 3d 356 CR-08-0903 (Ala. C r i m . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . I n s t e a d of d i s m i s s i n g the charges, 1 t h i s C o u r t s a i d , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d have r e f u s e d t o a c c e p t the p l e a s f o r w h i c h i t f o u n d no f a c t u a l b a s i s and t h e n a l l o w e d the d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y t o determine h i s next course of a c t i o n . This Court d i r e c t e d the c i r c u i t the to r e i n s t a t e those counts of indictment. On remand, a 2009. Robertson guilty to the arrest, "as we ( R . 4.) The status again charges h e a r i n g was indicated of attempted that disorderly t o do held she initially," and 13, to plead resisting Robertson said. court then conducted a g u i l t y - p l e a colloquy, Robertson a b o u t h e r a c t i o n s on t h e day o f t h e i n c i d e n t . "I'm and testified The t r i a l c o u r t t r y i n g t o wrap my m i n d a r o u n d w h e t h e r o r n o t g o t -- I see t h e r e s i s t i n g the February wanted conduct Robertson pleaded g u i l t y to both charges. stated: on d i s o r d e r l y conduct." arrest, just having trouble ( R . 1 8 - 1 9 . ) The t r i a l I with c o u r t and t h e prosecutor d i s c u s s e d whether the S t a t e c o u l d e s t a b l i s h both resisting arrest that discussion, 1 Denis and the t r i a l disorderly conduct. During court stated: I n t h i s c a s e , t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s name i s s p e l l e d " C h a n t n e l l Robertson." 3 CR-08-0903 " E i t h e r you g o t d i s o r d e r l y c o n d u c t o r you have resisting arrest. I -- i n my m i n d , now, I ' l l d i s m i s s t h i s c a s e a g a i n and i t can go b a c k up t o t h e court again. I don't care. A l l right. But I'm t r y i n g t o g i v e you an o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x p l a i n t o me why you t h i n k you g o t b o t h . " (R. 21-22.) At the c o n c l u s i o n of the h e a r i n g , the t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d : "I'll for accept your p l e a on resisting a r r e s t and a second time the d i s o r d e r l y conduct." State again I ' l l dismiss (R. 22-23.) The appealed the d i s m i s s a l of the d i s o r d e r l y conduct charge. The must be S t a t e a r g u e s on a p p e a l r e v e r s e d because, i t says, follow this not Court's have d i s m i s s e d w i t h the "The t h a t the t r i a l d i r e c t i o n s on the the t r i a l remand and disorderly-conduct court's court f a i l e d charge. r u l e i s as f o l l o w s : "'On remand, t h e i s s u e s d e c i d e d by t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t become l a w o f t h e c a s e and the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d u t y i s t o comply w i t h t h e a p p e l l a t e mandate " a c c o r d i n g t o i t s t r u e i n t e n t and m e a n i n g , as d e t e r m i n e d by the d i r e c t i o n s given by the reviewing court." Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Power Co., 431 So. 2d 151 ( A l a . 1983) (emphasis added [ i n Walker]). When t h e mandate i s n o t c l e a r , the opinion of the court should be consulted. See Cherokee Nation v. 4 to that i t should State. general ruling We agree CR-08-0903 Oklahoma, 461 F.2d 674 ( 1 0 t h C i r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 409 U.S. 1039, 93 S.Ct. 521, 34 L.Ed.2d 489 ( 1 9 7 2 ) . ' " W a l k e r v. C a r o l i n a M i l l s Lumber 980, 982 (Ala.Civ.App.1983)." F r a n k s v. S t a t e , 651 So. 2d 1114, 1117 In our thoroughly provide previously issued dismissal p o s s i b l e lack of evidence, of So. 2d in this case, we t h a t A l a b a m a l a w does n o t an and we 441 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1994) . opinion discussed the p r i n c i p l e f o r the Co., indictment based on the held: "Instead of d i s m i s s i n g the charges, the court s h o u l d have r e f u s e d t o a c c e p t R o b e r t s o n ' s p l e a s t o t h e c o u n t s i t f o u n d h a d no f a c t u a l b a s i s and t h e n allowed the d i s t r i c t attorney to determine h i s next course of a c t i o n . By d i s m i s s i n g t h e c h a r g e s t h e circuit court usurped the authority granted e x c l u s i v e l y to the d i s t r i c t attorney. "Accordingly, the circuit court's ruling dismissing the resisting-arrest and disorderly-conduct charges i s reversed, and t h e court i s d i r e c t e d t o r e i n s t a t e those counts of Robertson's indictment." 8 So. 3d a t 357 (citation omitted). T h i s C o u r t ' s mandate i n t h e p r e v i o u s l y i s s u e d o p i n i o n was c l e a r , and t h e t r i a l it dismissed f o r a second c o u r t f a i l e d t o f o l l o w t h a t mandate when the disorderly-conduct time. 5 charge a g a i n s t Robertson CR-08-0903 Before dismiss a trial, the t r i a l court or lack colloquy i s to evaluate thereof. I t s role the f a c t u a l decide whether t o accept the p l e a . o u r o r d e r on remand, a n d a t r i a l an o r d e r litigant order authority to a c h a r g e b a s e d on i t own e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e p r o p o s e d evidence ignore h a s no on remand i n the t r i a l court i s s u e d by t h e c i r c u i t Therefore, the c i r c u i t from during basis a guilty-plea f o r t h e p l e a and T h i s was c l e a r l y s t a t e d i n c o u r t i s no more e n t i t l e d t o an a p p e l l a t e w o u l d be e n t i t l e d court than to ignore a an judge. court's ruling dismissing the d i s o r d e r l y - c o n d u c t charge i s a g a i n r e v e r s e d , and t h a t c o u r t i s again directed to reinstate that count of Robertson's indictment. REVERSED AND REMANDED. W i s e , P . J . , a n d Windom, K e l l u m , 6 and Main, J J . , concur.

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.