State of Alabama v. Eric Lashawn Bethel, alias

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/30/2010 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-09-0881 S t a t e o f Alabama v. Eric Appeal KELLUM, Lashawn Bethel from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CC-09-2224) Court Judge. E r i c Lashawn B e t h e l was i n d i c t e d f o r e s c a p e i n t h e f i r s t d e g r e e , a v i o l a t i o n o f § 13A-10-31, A l a . Code 1975. D u r i n g a h e a r i n g h e l d f o r the purpose o f a c c e p t i n g Bethel's g u i l t y p l e a to escape i n t h e f i r s t degree as charged i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t , CR-09-0881 the circuit court dismissed the indictment against Bethel. P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 15.7, A l a . R. C r i m . P., t h e S t a t e a p p e a l s t h e circuit c o u r t ' s judgment d i s m i s s i n g B e t h e l ' s indictment. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t d u r i n g t h e g u i l t y - p l e a h e l d on M a r c h 4, 2 0 1 0 , t h e f o l l o w i n g hearing occurred: "THE COURT: Where were y o u s e n t e n c e d t o ? "[BETHEL]: "THE Sir? COURT: Y o u were s e r v i n g t i m e w h e r e ? "[DEFENSE Corrections. COUNSEL]: He was in Community "THE COURT: Y o u were s e r v i n g t i m e i n Community Corrections? "[BETHEL]: Y e s , "THE I sir. COURT: What d i d y o u do? " [ B E T H E L ] : S i r , my c o u s i n c o m m i t t e d s u i c i d e a n d r e l a p s e d and d i d n ' t r e p o r t , Your Honor. "THE COURT: Okay. How many months were y o u gone b e f o r e t h e y a r r e s t e d you? " [ B E T H E L ] : I was gone l i k e "THE COURT: Okay. Y o u d i d n ' t r e p o r t w h e r e ? "[BETHEL]: D i d n ' t "THE a week. r e p o r t t o Mr. S m i t h . COURT: How many months d i d y o u m i s s ? " [ B E T H E L ] : I d i d n ' t m i s s a month. I j u s t m i s s e d a week. I was r e p o r t i n g once a week. 2 CR-09-0881 "THE COURT: Y o u were r e p o r t i n g once a week a n d you o n l y m i s s e d one week? "[BETHEL]: Y e s , sir. "THE COURT: I s t h a t right? "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: T h a t ' s what t h i s "THE COURT: I s t h a t r i g h t , shows. one week? "[PROSECUTOR]: He was c o n t a c t e d on J a n u a r y 2 2 n d , '09 a n d t o l d t o r e p o r t . D i d n ' t r e p o r t . Wednesday t h e 28th, the defendant f a i l e d t o r e p o r t a g a i n as "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: He was a c t u a l l y a b s e n t two weeks. "[PROSECUTOR]: I'm sure of the actual arrest date. first be go you. T h a t seems t o be a l i t t l e u n f a i r t o me. "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: When were y o u p i c k e d back up? " [ B E T H E L ] : A week. A week a f t e r I t a l k e d t o Mr. S m i t h . I t was a week. I t was one week. I t w a s n ' t two weeks. I t was one week. "THE COURT: E s c a p e i n t h e f i r s t week's f a i l u r e t o a p p e a r o r r e p o r t ? "[PROSECUTOR]: I c a n ' t speak degree for I on a don't know. "THE COURT: S i n c e I know about Community C o r r e c t i o n s , a n d I b e l i e v e t h e y s h o u l d have e s c a p e 3 CR-09-0881 c l a u s e s e s c a p e c a s e s . A n d I know what I am a b o u t t o do t o -- y o u ' r e g o i n g t o have t o do a l o t o f work. B u t I am n o t g o i n g t o t a k e a p l e a on e s c a p e f o r one week b e c a u s e I d o n ' t v i e w t h a t as an e s c a p e . I am g o i n g t o d i s m i s s t h i s c a s e . A n d I know what you g o t t o do. B u t n o t t o r e p o r t f o r one week i n Community C o r r e c t i o n s i s n o t e s c a p e . So I am g o i n g to d i s m i s s t h i s case and send him back t o t h e p e n i t e n t i a r y t o s e r v e h i s t i m e . ... " (R. 4-6.) The in S t a t e c o n t e n d s on a p p e a l dismissing argues: the indictment (1) a d i s m i s s a l b a s e d that the c i r c u i t court erred against Bethel on t h e i n s u f f i c i e n c y e v i d e n c e was i n a p p r o p r i a t e ; a n d (2) c o n t r a r y finding, the f a i l u r e to report because, i t to the of the to the court's community-corrections program c o u l d c o n s t i t u t e escape i n the f i r s t degree. R u l e 1 3 . 5 ( c ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., l i s t s t h e g r o u n d s t h a t will support a p r e t r i a l motion to dismiss an i n d i c t m e n t : "A m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e i n d i c t m e n t may be b a s e d upon o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e v e n i r e , t h e l a c k o f l e g a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f an i n d i v i d u a l g r a n d j u r o r , t h e legal insufficiency of the indictment, or the f a i l u r e o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t t o c h a r g e an o f f e n s e . " In State v. F o s t e r , 935 So. 2d 1216 (Ala. Crim. 2 0 0 5 ) , we s t a t e d : " R u l e 1 3 . 5 ( c ) ( 1 ) does n o t p r o v i d e f o r t h e d i s m i s s a l o f an i n d i c t m e n t b a s e d on t h e i n s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e o r , as i n t h i s c a s e , a p o s s i b l e l a c k o f e v i d e n c e . See S t a t e v. E d w a r d s , 590 So. 2d 379 ( A l a . 4 App. CR-09-0881 C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) ( e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f t h e c o r p u s d e l i c t i r e q u i r e s p r o o f o f f a c t s by t h e S t a t e so e n t w i n e d w i t h t h e m e r i t s o f t h e c a s e t h a t a d e c i s i o n as t o w h e t h e r i t h a d b e e n p r o v e d s h o u l d n o t be made b e f o r e t r i a l b u t s h o u l d be p o s t p o n e d u n t i l t r i a l ) ; S t a t e v. M c C l a i n , 911 So. 2d 54 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ( t r i a l c o u r t c a n n o t d i s m i s s t h e i n d i c t m e n t b a s e d on a l a c k of e v i d e n c e ) . " 935 So. (Ala. F.3d 2d a t 1216-17. See C r i m . App. 1257, c o u r t may 1263 S t a t e v. A n d e r s o n , 8 So. 3d 1033 2 0 0 8 ) . See a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s v. S h a r p e , 438 (11th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( " I t i s w e l l - s e t t l e d t h a t 'a n o t d i s m i s s an i n d i c t m e n t ... on a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f f a c t s t h a t s h o u l d have b e e n d e v e l o p e d a t t r i a l . ' U n i t e d S t a t e s v. T o r k i n g t o n , 812 Furthermore, C r i m . App. F.2d 1347, 1354 i n S t a t e v. W r i g h t , first 976 So. 2d 1053 (Ala. 2 0 0 7 ) , t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t an i n m a t e s e n t e n c e d t o a c o m m u n i t y - c o r r e c t i o n s p r o g r a m may the ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1987).") degree h o l d i n g , we under be c h a r g e d w i t h e s c a p e i n the a p p r o p r i a t e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . I n so explained: " [ I ] n d e e m i n g an i n m a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o r e m a i n w i t h i n the e x t e n d e d l i m i t s o f h i s c o n f i n e m e n t u n d e r t h e community c o r r e c t i o n s p r o g r a m an e s c a p e f r o m a s t a t e penal i n s t i t u t i o n , [§ 1 5 - 1 8 - 1 7 5 ( d ) ( 3 ) e , A l a . Code 1975,] d e f i n e s t h e i n m a t e ' s s t a t u s f o r p u r p o s e s o f i n v o k i n g the escape o f f e n s e s s e t f o r t h i n Alabama's C r i m i n a l Code. I n o t h e r w o r d s , i f a p e r s o n f a i l s t o remain w i t h i n the extended l i m i t s of h i s confinement as those l i m i t s a r e d e f i n e d by the community c o r r e c t i o n s p r o g r a m , t h e n h i s s t a t u s i s t h a t o f an inmate who has escaped from a state penal 5 CR-09-0881 institution or from the custody of the county s h e r i f f , d e p e n d i n g upon t h e u n d e r l y i n g c o n v i c t i o n . " J u s t as a ' t r a d i t i o n a l ' i n m a t e ( t h a t i s , an i n m a t e i n c a r c e r a t e d w i t h i n p r i s o n w a l l s ) who e s c a p e s from a p e n a l institution can be charged with f i r s t - d e g r e e e s c a p e i f he uses p h y s i c a l f o r c e , t h r e a t o f p h y s i c a l f o r c e , o r a d e a d l y weapon o r i n s t r u m e n t i n e s c a p i n g , § 1 3 A - 1 0 - 3 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , o r i f he escapes a f t e r h a v i n g been c o n v i c t e d of a f e l o n y , § 13A-10-31(a)(2), an inmate in the community c o r r e c t i o n s p r o g r a m who f a i l s to s t a y w i t h i n the p a r a m e t e r s o f t h e d i c t a t e s o f t h e p r o g r a m can a l s o be c h a r g e d w i t h f i r s t - d e g r e e e s c a p e i f , i n e s c a p i n g , he u s e s p h y s i c a l f o r c e , t h e t h r e a t o f p h y s i c a l f o r c e , o r a d e a d l y weapon o r i n s t r u m e n t , o r i f he was i n custody because of a f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y , an i n m a t e who e s c a p e s f r o m a community corrections program can, under the appropriate circumstances, properly be charged with and c o n v i c t e d of f i r s t - d e g r e e escape." S t a t e v. W r i g h t , The 976 So. 2d a t 1055-56. c i r c u i t court impermissibly dismissed f o r two C o u r t has previously h e l d , R u l e 13.5 does n o t p e r m i t t h e d i s m i s s a l o f an indictment when i t dismissed insufficiency taking charged part with circumstances, of in evidence. the the the charge this Thus, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t against evidence. Bethel Further, community-corrections first-degree the As indictment against Bethel b a s e d on i n s u f f i c i e n t reasons. the circuit escape court 6 under based because an program the erred on the inmate may be appropriate l i k e w i s e could not dismiss CR-09-0881 t h e i n d i c t m e n t a g a i n s t B e t h e l on t h i s g r o u n d . I n r e a c h i n g this d e t e r m i n a t i o n , h o w e v e r , we do n o t e x p r e s s an o p i n i o n as t o t h e efficacy of the first-degree-escape That d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s best left charge against t o a jury or other Bethel. finder of fact. B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e c i r c u i t court i s r e v e r s e d a n d t h i s c a s e i s remanded f o r t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o set a s i d e i t s order d i s m i s s i n g the f i r s t - d e g r e e escape charges and to restore Bethel's case t o i t s a c t i v e docket. REVERSED AND REMANDED. W i s e , P . J . , a n d W e l c h , Windom, a n d M a i n , J J . , c o n c u r . 7

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.