Curtis Maurice Sanders, alias v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/14/2012 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, 2012-2013 CR-10-1091 C u r t i s Maurice Sanders v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CC-10-1961) Court JOINER, J u d g e . Curtis burglary. court Maurice Sanders See § 1 3 A - 7 - 7 ( a ) , sentenced Sanders pleaded Ala. guilty Code t o two y e a r s ' to third-degree 1975. The c i r c u i t imprisonment b u t CR-10-1091 suspended t h a t s e n t e n c e and p l a c e d S a n d e r s on p r o b a t i o n . We r e v e r s e and r e n d e r a j u d g m e n t f o r S a n d e r s . F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y On t h e m o r n i n g o f A p r i l 1, 2010, l a w - e n f o r c e m e n t officers saw S a n d e r s c a r r y i n g m e t a l and a s c r e w d r i v e r i n an u n o c c u p i e d house l o c a t e d a t 8413 5 t h Avenue N o r t h i n B i r m i n g h a m . The o f f i c e r s a r r e s t e d S a n d e r s , and S a n d e r s was u l t i m a t e l y i n d i c t e d for one Ala. count Code of t h i r d - d e g r e e burglary. See § 13A-7-7(a), 1975. Sanders f i l e d a motion t o d i s m i s s the i n d i c t m e n t i n which he asserted that he could not be guilty of third-degree b u r g l a r y b e c a u s e , he a r g u e d , t h e s t r u c t u r e he h a d e n t e r e d was n o t a " b u i l d i n g " as t h a t t e r m i s u s e d i n § 1 3 A - 7 - 7 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975. Sanders presented evidence at a hearing on the m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , and t h e S t a t e s t i p u l a t e d t o t h e a d m i s s i o n of t h a t evidence. denied the motion F o l l o w i n g the hearing, t o d i s m i s s , and third-degree burglary, 1 Sanders the c i r c u i t court pleaded g u i l t y to r e s e r v i n g f o r appeal the d e n i a l of h i s The t r a n s c r i p t o f S a n d e r s ' s g u i l t y - p l e a h e a r i n g i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e S t a t e a g r e e d , as a p a r t o f t h e p l e a a g r e e m e n t , t o n o l l e p r o s a c h a r g e o f p o s s e s s i o n o f b u r g l a r ' s t o o l s , see § 13A-7-8, A l a . Code 1975. (R. 52-53.) 1 2 CR-10-1091 motion to dismiss CR-09-1148, Aug. App. the indictment. 26, 2011] See Ankrom v. S t a t e , So. 3d , [Ms. ( A l a . Crim. 2011). Standard of Review "[This] application case involves only an issue of and the Therefore, of the law t o u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s . law our r e v i e w i s de novo. Ex p a r t e W a l k e r , 928 So. 2d 259, 262 ( A l a . 2005)." State, Y e a r b y v. 95 So. 3d 20, 22 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012). Discussion The evidence presented at the hearing dismiss established ("the A u t h o r i t y " ) that given program Under the terms federal several other acquired those funds the motion Airport Sanders Authority entered. to that of t h a t purchase had program, the begun the A u t h o r i t y structure s t r u c t u r e s l o c a t e d i n the area. structures solely i n the The along The airport. 3 late was with Authority t o d e m o l i s h them and r e d e v e l o p t h e l a n d on w h i c h t h e y were l o c a t e d t o b u f f e r from the to t h e s t r u c t u r e as a p a r t o f a f e d e r a l l y noise-abatement 1980s. Birmingham owned t h e s t r u c t u r e A u t h o r i t y had a c q u i r e d funded the on then noise CR-10-1091 Lowrenzo T a y l o r , as an airport the h e a r i n g . who engineer had b e e n e m p l o y e d by f o r more t h a n 20 Taylor described i n a c q u i r i n g and d e m o l i s h i n g the years, Authority testified the p r o c e s s the A u t h o r i t y used s t r u c t u r e s i n the noise-abatement program, i n c l u d i n g the p a r t i c u l a r s t r u c t u r e at issue i n case. the Taylor stated for demolition, property contractors to remove that hazardous any contractor cleared to once i t would demolish Authority advertise any structure material such on as acquired for the bids the structure. Taylor within its 90-120 to days Taylor, of once d e m o l i s h a s t r u c t u r e , the Once acquisition the by contractor contractor the was or h i s employees t h e i r s at that p o i n t . " the t e s t i f i e d t h a t once t h e Authority, other than noise i t could no longer a b a t e m e n t , and u s e d as a r e s i d e n c e . (R. 21.) structure 18.) was acquired be for any used to could property by purpose i t s p e c i f i c a l l y c o u l d not Taylor 4 (R. that cleared was ... be Authority. from the s t r u c t u r e because the "essentially a accomplished take scrap m a t e r i a l s Taylor and testified o f a s t r u c t u r e w o u l d be a from property asbestos. t y p i c a l l y the d e m o l i t i o n According this secured the w i n n i n g b i d , t h a t c o n t r a c t o r would demolish at t e s t i f i e d t h a t on be the CR-10-1091 date of the offense the a r r e s t e d had been a c q u i r e d demolition Taylor by B r i t t identified structure i n which b y t h e A u t h o r i t y a n d was Demolition, a contractor; and i d e n t i f i e d Demolition four testified t o s i x weeks a f t e r S a n d e r s ' s knowingly enters meant a r r e s t , the removed. S e c t i o n 1 3 A - 7 - 7 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s : the crime symbol-- had s e t t h e s t r u c t u r e f o r d e m o l i t i o n . s t r u c t u r e was d e m o l i s h e d and c o m p l e t e l y commits set for specifically, the c o n t r a c t o r ' s "B/R"--marked on t h e s t r u c t u r e , w h i c h T a y l o r Approximately was t h e s t r u c t u r e i n a p h o t o g r a p h t a k e n on t h e date of the offense that B r i t t Sanders of b u r g l a r y or remains i n the t h i r d unlawfully i n t e n t t o commit a c r i m e t h e r e i n . " "A p e r s o n degree i f he in a building (Emphasis added.) with Sanders contends t h a t the c i r c u i t court e r r e d i n denying the motion t o dismiss entered 7(a), the indictment because, he says, the s t r u c t u r e he was n o t a " b u i l d i n g " as t h a t t e r m i s u s e d i n § 13A-7- A l a . Code 1975. I n Ex p a r t e M c C o r m i c k , 932 So. 2d 124, 132 ( A l a . 2005), t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d : " I n any c a s e i n v o l v i n g s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n , our i n q u i r y b e g i n s w i t h the language o f the s t a t u t e , and i f t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e s t a t u t o r y l a n g u a g e i s p l a i n , o u r a n a l y s i s ends t h e r e . Ex p a r t e Moore, 880 5 CR-10-1091 So. 2d 1 1 3 1 , 1140 ( A l a . 2003) ('"'The c a r d i n a l r u l e of s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s t o determine and g i v e effect to the i n t e n t of the l e g i s l a t u r e as manifested i n the language of the s t a t u t e . ' " ' ) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e Weaver, 871 So. 2d 820, 823 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Ex p a r t e S t a t e Dep't o f Revenue, 683 So. 2d 980, 983 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ) . This C o u r t i n D e K a l b C o u n t y LP Gas Co. v. S u b u r b a n Gas, I n c . , 729 So. 2d 270, 275-76 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) , e x p l a i n e d : " ' I n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e meaning o f a s t a t u t e , t h i s C o u r t l o o k s t o t h e p l a i n meaning o f t h e words as w r i t t e n b y t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . As we have s a i d : "'"'Words u s e d i n a s t a t u t e must be g i v e n t h e i r n a t u r a l , p l a i n , o r d i n a r y , a n d commonly u n d e r s t o o d m e a n i n g , a n d where p l a i n l a n g u a g e is used a court i s bound t o i n t e r p r e t t h a t l a n g u a g e t o mean e x a c t l y what i t s a y s . I f the language of the statute i s unambiguous, then t h e r e i s no room f o r j u d i c i a l construction and t h e c l e a r l y e x p r e s s e d i n t e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e must be g i v e n effect.'"' "729 So. 2d a t 275-76 ( q u o t i n g B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d v. N i e l s e n , 714 So. 2d 293, 296 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) , additional c i t a t i o n s omitted). See a l s o 729 So. 2d a t 276 ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t t h e separation-of-powers d o c t r i n e r e q u i r e s a c o u r t t o use t h e p l a i n - m e a n i n g r u l e i n c o n s t r u i n g a s t a t u t e and t h a t 'only i f t h e r e i s no r a t i o n a l way t o i n t e r p r e t t h e words as s t a t e d w i l l [a c o u r t ] l o o k b e y o n d t h o s e words t o d e t e r m i n e legislative intent')." 6 CR-10-1091 The l e g i s l a t u r e has p r o v i d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n "building" as that term i s used i n § 13A-7-7(a), of A l a . Code 1975: "BUILDING. Any s t r u c t u r e w h i c h may be e n t e r e d and utilized by p e r s o n s for business, public use, l o d g i n g o r t h e s t o r a g e o f g o o d s , and s u c h t e r m i n c l u d e s any v e h i c l e , a i r c r a f t o r w a t e r c r a f t u s e d f o r t h e l o d g i n g o f p e r s o n s o r c a r r y i n g on b u s i n e s s t h e r e i n , and s u c h t e r m i n c l u d e s any r a i l r o a d box c a r or o t h e r r a i l equipment or t r a i l e r or tractor t r a i l e r or combination t h e r e o f . Where a b u i l d i n g c o n s i s t s o f two o r more u n i t s s e p a r a t e l y o c c u p i e d o r secure, each shall be deemed b o t h a s e p a r a t e b u i l d i n g and a p a r t o f t h e m a i n b u i l d i n g . " § 13A-7-1(2), Sanders 7(a) A l a . Code 1975. entered i n this depends on Thus, w h e t h e r the under case i s a " b u i l d i n g " whether i t could have been structure § 13A-7- "entered and u t i l i z e d by p e r s o n s f o r b u s i n e s s , p u b l i c use, l o d g i n g or the s t o r a g e of goods." § 1 3 A - 7 - 1 ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975. The S t a t e a r g u e s on a p p e a l t h a t " t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e i n the record to abandoned." there is suggest that the house ( S t a t e ' s b r i e f , p. 10.) was Thus, t h e S t a t e a r g u e s , persons for b u s i n e s s , p u b l i c use, l o d g i n g or the s t o r a g e of goods," § 13A- "be indicating case was to evidence this structure unsuitable no in entered 7 - 1 ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975. We and that utilized disagree. 7 the The by undisputed facts CR-10-1091 indicate that (1) t h e s t r u c t u r e could " u t i l i z e d by p e r s o n s f o r b u s i n e s s , storage did of goods" and p u b l i c use, l o d g i n g or the (2) t h e owner o f t h e s t r u c t u r e i n f a c t As noted, the acquiring the s t r u c t u r e was terms the federal of acquired, by Ala. the in under the structure was t o use t h e s t r u c t u r e specifically listed in § 13A-7-1(2), Thus, t h e s t r u c t u r e h e r e d i d n o t come w i t h i n meaning addition, conclusion intention i t , and, which of " b u i l d i n g " as t h a t t e r m i n § 1 3 A - 7 - 1 ( 2 ) , A l a . Code In only to demolish t h e A u t h o r i t y was n o t p e r m i t t e d Code 1975. plain Authority's program any o f t h e p u r p o s e s Ala. the legally n o t i n t e n d t o use i t f o r any o f t h e p u r p o s e s l i s t e d i n t h e statute. for n o t have b e e n the the legislature defined 1975. Commentary t o § 13A-7-1 supports our t h a t t h e p l a i n m e a n i n g o f " b u i l d i n g " i n § 13A-7-1, Code 1975, does n o t i n c l u d e t h e s t r u c t u r e i n t h i s case. 2 We c i t e t h e Commentary o n l y t o n o t e t h a t o u r h o l d i n g i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h i t . Thus, t h e i n s t a n t c a s e i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m H i l e r v. S t a t e , 44 So. 3d 543 ( A l a . 2009) . I n H i l e r , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t r e v e r s e d a d e c i s i o n o f t h i s C o u r t t h a t h e l d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n d u c t was e x c e p t e d f r o m t h e r e a c h of the s t a t u t e a t i s s u e t h e r e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h i s C o u r t had r e l i e d on t h e Commentary t o c r e a t e an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e s t a t u t e at issue i n H i l e r . The Supreme C o u r t r e v e r s e d t h i s C o u r t ' s judgment b e c a u s e , t h e C o u r t h e l d , t h i s C o u r t h a d c o n s t r u e d t h e Commentary t o t h e s t a t u t e r a t h e r t h a n t h e s t a t u t e i t s e l f . 44 So. 3d a t 548 ("Because t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s a p p l i e d 2 8 CR-10-1091 T h a t Commentary s t a t e s , i n r e l e v a n t part: " ' B u i l d i n g ' includes a v a r i e t y of structures i n different contexts. The d e f i n i t i o n includes a building i n i t s ordinary and u s u a l sense--any structure which may be e n t e r e d and u s e d f o r business, p u b l i c use, lodging or the storage of g o o d s . I t does n o t i n c l u d e a house t h a t i s s t i l l i n the e a r l y stages o f c o n s t r u c t i o n and which i s n o t b e i n g l i v e d i n n o r u s e d f o r s t o r a g e p u r p o s e s , o r an abandoned b u i l d i n g a w a i t i n g d e m o l i t i o n . " 3 (Emphasis added.) Conclusion Because the undisputed s t r u c t u r e Sanders e n t e r e d 1(2), A l a . Code facts demonstrate that the was n o t a " b u i l d i n g " u n d e r § 13A-7- 1975, t h e c i r c u i t court erred i n denying t h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f t h e Commentary t o § 13A-11-11 r a t h e r than the p l a i n language of the s t a t u t e i t s e l f i n r e a c h i n g i t s d e c i s i o n , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s e r r e d i n r e v e r s i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment a n d r e n d e r i n g a judgment i n f a v o r o f H i l e r as t o t h e c o n v i c t i o n f o r f a l s e l y r e p o r t i n g an i n c i d e n t . " ) . We n o t e t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e h a s p r o v i d e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same d e f i n i t i o n o f " b u i l d i n g " i n two o t h e r c r i m i n a l statutory provisions: § 13A-3-20(1), A l a . Code 1975 ( a p p l i c a b l e t o j u s t i f i c a t i o n and e x c u s e ) , and § 13A-7-40(1), A l a . Code 1975 ( a p p l i c a b l e t o a r s o n o f f e n s e s ) . Like the Commentary t o § 1 3 A - 7 - 1 ( 2 ) , t h e Commentary t o § 1 3 A - 3 - 2 0 ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975, i n c l u d e s t h e same l a n g u a g e s t a t i n g t h a t t h e d e f i n i t i o n does n o t i n c l u d e "an a b a n d o n e d b u i l d i n g a w a i t i n g demolition." The Commentary t o § 1 3 A - 7 - 4 0 ( 1 ) - - t h e d e f i n i t i o n of " b u i l d i n g " a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e a r t i c l e p r o h i b i t i n g a r s o n - ¬ does n o t i n c l u d e t h e l a n g u a g e r e g a r d i n g "an a b a n d o n e d b u i l d i n g awaiting demolition." 3 9 CR-10-1091 Sanders's motion t o d i s m i s s the i n d i c t m e n t . A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment and r e n d e r favor of Sanders as to the conviction a judgment i n f o r third-degree burglary. REVERSED AND JUDGMENT RENDERED. K e l l u m and B u r k e , J J . , concur. result. Windom, P . J . , d i s s e n t s . 10 Welch, J . , concurs i n the

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.