Myron Dontrell Clancy, alias v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/23/2012 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, 2011-2012 CR-10-1228 Myron D o n t r e l l Clancy v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Tuscaloosa C i r c u i t (CC08-1991) Court BURKE, J u d g e . Myron Dontrell Clancy was convicted of murder, a v i o l a t i o n o f § 13A-6-2, A l a . Code 1975, a n d was s e n t e n c e d t o 40 y e a r s ' imprisonment. This appeal follows. CR-10-1228 The relevant facts procedural the i n nature. Juvenile Court f o r the purposes C l a n c y ' s murder charge of Tuscaloosa years o l d at the time of t h i s appeal are originated i n C o u n t y b e c a u s e he of the charged conduct. was 15 On M a r c h 11, 2008, t h e S t a t e f i l e d a m o t i o n i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a s k i n g i t to transfer Clancy's case t o the c i r c u i t c o u l d be p r o s e c u t e d as an a d u l t p u r s u a n t Code 1975. ( C . 13.) p e t i t i o n pursuant have Clancy facility on c o u r t where Clancy t o § 12-15-34, A l a . Two d a y s l a t e r , C l a n c y ' s m o t h e r f i l e d a t o § 12-15-90, A l a . Code 1975, s e e k i n g t o involuntarily the basis committed that he to was a mental-health mentally i l l and c o n s e q u e n t l y p o s e d " a r e a l and p r e s e n t t h r e a t o f s u b s t a n t i a l harm t o h i m s e l f o r t o o t h e r s . " the juvenile transfer court held and t h e p e t i t i o n a 1 ( C . 95.) hearing on On M a r c h 14, 2008, both for involuntary the motion commitment. to The j u v e n i l e c o u r t granted the S t a t e ' s motion t o t r a n s f e r Clancy's case t o the c i r c u i t c o u r t and d i s m i s s e d t h e p e t i t i o n t o h a v e T h e A l a b a m a J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e A c t , § 12-15-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, i n c l u d i n g §§ 12-15-34 and 12-15-90, was amended and t h e Code s e c t i o n s r e n u m b e r e d e f f e c t i v e J a n u a r y 1, 2009. B e c a u s e t h e i n s t a n t o f f e n s e o c c u r r e d on M a r c h 8, 2008, we w i l l r e f e r t o t h e s t a t u t e s i n e f f e c t p r i o r t o t h e amendments. See M i n n i f i e l d v. S t a t e , 941 So. 2d 1000, 1001 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2005) ( " I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t t h e l a w i n e f f e c t a t t h e t i m e of t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e o f f e n s e c o n t r o l s t h e p r o s e c u t i o n " ) . 1 2 CR-10-1228 him involuntarily committed. (C. s e p a r a t e a p p e a l from each of the Clancy's involuntary appeal from commitment 16.) filed filed a rulings. the d i s m i s s a l was Clancy of the p e t i t i o n f o r i n this C o u r t ; however, i t was t r a n s f e r r e d b y c o n s e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e A l a b a m a C o u r t of Civil Appeals on September 29, 2008. The case was s u b s e q u e n t l y s e n t b a c k t o t h i s C o u r t where, on J u l y 3 0 , 2009, it the was t r a n s f e r r e d b y o r d e r o f t h e A l a b a m a Supreme Alabama 1975. 2 Supreme t o § 12-3-14, A l a . Code (C. 96.) Clancy also On O c t o b e r appeal Court pursuant Court to appealed the t r a n s f e r 8, 2008, t h i s pending the Court issued disposition order to t h i s Court. an o r d e r s t a y i n g of the appeal that of the i n v o l u n t a r y - c o m m i t m e n t by t h e Alabama C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s . (C. 59.) the However, on September 25, 2009, t h i s C o u r t juvenile (CR-07-1161, court's transfer September App. 2 0 0 9 ) ( t a b l e ) . order. 25, 2009) 57 See C l a n c y v. So. 3 d 200 affirmed State, ( A l a . Crim. We n o t e t h a t as o f t h e d a t e t h i s c a s e was T h e r e c o r d i s u n c l e a r as t o when o r why t h e c a s e was t r a n s f e r r e d back t o t h i s Court from the Court of C i v i l Appeals. However, t h e o r d e r f r o m t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t t h e c a s e was t o be t r a n s f e r r e d " f r o m t h e C o u r t o f Criminal Appeals t o t h e Supreme Court o f Alabama f o r consideration." (C. 96.) 2 3 CR-10-1228 a r g u e d , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t had yet to i s s u e a d e c i s i o n on Clancy's the appeal involuntary of the the of appeal a r g u m e n t s on a p p e a l . of the dismissal i n v o l u n t a r y commitment c o n s t i t u t e s an order. Therefore, he commitment a p p e a l was obtaining that argues, the Court the for issued an order t r a n s f e r order of the his contends petition appeal of the for transfer involuntary- Second, C l a n c y p o i n t s staying pending the He of the t r a n s f e r order in violation of f a c t t h a t the o v e r him. involuntary-commitment appeal. affirmance F i r s t , he pending p r e v e n t e d the c i r c u i t c o u r t jurisdiction this regarding petition commitment. C l a n c y makes two that dismissal from out a l l proceedings disposition contends t h a t t h i s of the Court's i s v o i d b e c a u s e i t was issued stay. I. It is undisputed jurisdiction to that adjudicate appeal of a t r a n s f e r order an appellate (Ala. court. 2002)(holding jurisdiction to a Ex that circuit the merits court of a does not have case while an from a j u v e n i l e c o u r t i s pending i n parte Webb, 843 So. circuit court "the adjudicate the 4 merits of 2d 127, did the not 130-31 have indictment CR-10-1228 against Webb while h i s appeal of the transfer pending before the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s . " ) ; Ala. R. J u v . P. transferring a prosecution court."). ("The child shall certificate to stay However, became f i n a l filing o f judgment. adult from court proceedings the appeal on O c t o b e r when C l a n c y ' s t r i a l the was see a l s o Rule 2 8 ( F ) , o f an a p p e a l the order for in of Clancy's an criminal the circuit transfer 14, 2009, when t h i s Court T h e r e f o r e , no a p p e a l was order order issued a pending b e g a n on J a n u a r y 24, 2 0 1 1 . A l t h o u g h C l a n c y does n o t d i s p u t e t h a t t h e a p p e a l o f t h e transfer o r d e r was f i n a l , commitment a p p e a l order. i s , i n effect, (Clancy's b r i e f , 15-34(b), he c o n t e n d s A l a . Code a t 8.) 1975, that the involuntary- an a p p e a l of the t r a n s f e r C l a n c y p o i n t s o u t t h a t § 12- states that a child can be t r a n s f e r r e d from j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o c i r c u i t c o u r t o n l y i f t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t " t h e r e a r e no r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e c h i l d i s c o m m i t t a b l e t o an i n s t i t u t i o n o r a g e n c y f o r the mentally retarded or mentally i l l Clancy, juvenile i f t h e Alabama court's ruling Supreme on Court " were his petition According to to reverse the f o r involuntary commitment i t w o u l d mean t h a t r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s do e x i s t as 5 CR-10-1228 t o w h e t h e r he i s " c o m m i t t a b l e t o an i n s t i t u t i o n o r a g e n c y f o r the m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d or m e n t a l l y i l l . " Clancy, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t w o u l d have n e c e s s a r i l y t r a n s f e r r i n g him t o the c i r c u i t As noted, Thus, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h a s y e t t o i s s u e circuit of that c a s e may appeal. have an e f f e c t c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n by court. r u l i n g on C l a n c y ' s i n v o l u n t a r y - c o m m i t m e n t disposition erred a While the on w h e t h e r t h e t o t r y C l a n c y f o r murder, a r e n o t c a l l e d on t o d e t e r m i n e t h a t i s s u e i n t h i s we particular instance. C l a n c y ' s argument on a p p e a l h i n g e s on h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t the involuntary-commitment transfer order. He appeal asserts that, i s also since an a p p e a l both the of the transfer p r o c e e d i n g and t h e i n v o l u n t a r y - c o m m i t m e n t p r o c e e d i n g c o n c e r n the same appellate issues r e g a r d i n g h i s mental challenge commitment petition to the would ruling invalidate health, on the the a successful involuntary- transfer order. T h e r e f o r e , a c c o r d i n g t o C l a n c y , an a p p e a l o f t h e r u l i n g on t h e i n v o l u n t a r y - c o m m i t m e n t p e t i t i o n i s e q u i v a l e n t t o an a p p e a l o f the t r a n s f e r o r d e r , and, b a s e d on t h e r e a s o n i n g o f Ex p a r t e 6 CR-10-1228 Webb, s u p r a , t r y and We the convict circuit c o u r t d i d not assertion that a determination of i s committable i s a p r e r e q u i s i t e to a t r a n s f e r o r d e r and we a l s o a g r e e t h a t an a p p e a l order s t a y s the proceedings obtaining to him. agree w i t h Clancy's whether a c h i l d have j u r i s d i c t i o n jurisdiction and p r e v e n t s over the child. valid of a t r a n s f e r a c i r c u i t court from However, C l a n c y has f a i l e d t o c i t e any a u t h o r i t y s u p p o r t i n g h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t an appeal of a r u l i n g equivalent consequently jurisdiction to an on an involuntary-commitment p e t i t i o n appeal preclude of the a transfer circuit court order from that is would obtaining of a t r a n s f e r r e d case. " R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. P., r e q u i r e s t h a t an argument contain 'the contentions of the a p p e l l a n t / p e t i t i o n e r w i t h r e s p e c t to the issues p r e s e n t e d , and t h e r e a s o n s t h e r e f o r , w i t h c i t a t i o n s t o t h e c a s e s , s t a t u t e s , o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s , and p a r t s of the record relied on.' 'Recitation of a l l e g a t i o n s w i t h o u t c i t a t i o n t o any l e g a l a u t h o r i t y and w i t h o u t a d e q u a t e r e c i t a t i o n o f t h e f a c t s r e l i e d upon has b e e n deemed a w a i v e r of the arguments listed.' Hamm v. S t a t e , 913 So. 2d 460, 486 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2002). 'Authority supporting only " g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s o f l a w " does n o t c o n s t i t u t e a sufficient argument f o r r e v e r s a l . ' Beachcroft P r o p s . , LLP v. C i t y o f A l a b a s t e r , 901 So. 2d 703, 708 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , q u o t i n g G e i s e n h o f f v. G e i s e n h o f f , 693 So. 2d 489, 491 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 7 ) . " Egbuonu v. S t a t e , 993 So. 2d 35, 38-39 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 7 2007) . CR-10-1228 A d d i t i o n a l l y , we n o t e t h a t t h e m o t i o n t o t r a n s f e r and t h e involuntary-commitment petition proceedings. both court Although to determine institution whether are separate proceedings a child f o r the mentally i l l , and require distinct a juvenile i s committable a transfer hearing to an arises out of a d e l i n q u e n c y p r o c e e d i n g , which i s c r i m i n a l i n n a t u r e , w h i l e an i n v o l u n t a r y - c o m m i t m e n t hearing i s a c i v i l matter that i s not n e c e s s a r i l y t i e d t o a delinquency proceeding. They a r e also Juvenile codified Justice i n separate a r t i c l e s A c t : at a l l relevant included in Article o f the Alabama times, 2 entitled transfer "Delinquency hearings and C h i l d r e n i n Need o f S u p e r v i s i o n , " w h i l e i n v o l u n t a r y - c o m m i t m e n t were i n c l u d e d i n A r t i c l e 4 e n t i t l e d Minors or C h i l d r e n . " 1975 (see n o t e reinforced 1 by Rule were proceedings " I n v o l u n t a r y Commitment o f See §§ 12-15-34 and 12-15-90, A l a . Code supra). This distinction 2 8 ( A ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. J u v . P., is further which states t h a t appeals from a f i n a l o r d e r o f a j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n m a t t e r s other than "proceedings delinquent, proceedings i n which t o revoke a child i s adjudicated probation or aftercare i n d e l i n q u e n c y c a s e s , and p r o c e e d i n g s i n w h i c h a motion an o r d e r t o t r a n s f e r a c h i l d seeking to the adult court f o r c r i m i n a l 8 CR-10-1228 prosecution the an i s either g r a n t e d o r d e n i e d " a r e t o be f i l e d i n Court of C i v i l Appeals. appeal of a r u l i n g A c c o r d i n g l y , we c a n n o t s a y t h a t on an i n v o l u n t a r y - c o m m i t m e n t petition c o n s t i t u t e s an a p p e a l o f a t r a n s f e r o r d e r . Moreover, t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h a s h e l d : "The g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t a c o u r t may n o t i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e enforcement o f c r i m i n a l laws t h r o u g h a c i v i l a c t i o n ; i n s t e a d , t h e p a r t y a g g r i e v e d by such e n f o r c e m e n t s h a l l make h i s c a s e i n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n of t h e c r i m i n a l a c t i o n : " ' I t i s a p l a i n p r o p o s i t i o n of law that e q u i t y w i l l n o t e x e r t i t s powers m e r e l y t o enjoin criminal or quasi criminal p r o s e c u t i o n s , "though t h e consequences t o the complainant of allowing the p r o s e c u t i o n s t o p r o c e e d may be e v e r so grievous and i r r e p a r a b l e . " Brown v. B i r m i n g h a m , 140 A l a . [590,] 600, 37 S o u t h . [173,] 174 [ ( 1 9 0 4 ) ] . " H i s remedy a t l a w i s p l a i n , a d e q u a t e , a n d c o m p l e t e b y way o f establishing and h a v i n g h i s innocence adjudged i n the c r i m i n a l c o u r t . " I d . ' " B o a r d o f Comm'rs o f M o b i l e v . O r r , 181 A l a . 308, 318, 61 So. 920, 923 ( 1 9 1 3 ) . See a l s o 22A Am. J u r . 2d D e c l a r a t o r y Judgments § 57 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ( ' A d e c l a r a t o r y j u d g m e n t w i l l g e n e r a l l y n o t be g r a n t e d where i t s only effect would be t o d e c i d e m a t t e r s which p r o p e r l y s h o u l d be d e c i d e d i n a c r i m i n a l a c t i o n . ' ) . " T y s o n v. Macon C o u n t y G r e y h o u n d P a r k , I n c . , 43 So. 3d 587, 589 (Ala. mental 2010). health In the present case, and h i s p o t e n t i a l 9 the issue need of Clancy's f o r commitment was CR-10-1228 a d d r e s s e d by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a t t h e t r a n s f e r h e a r i n g , t h a t c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n was s u b s e q u e n t l y a f f i r m e d by t h i s on a p p e a l . Clancy petitioning the certiorari, but demonstrates circuit Accordingly, have p u r s u e d t h e i s s u e Alabama he that, court, could failed at the Supreme to do time Court so. of for The and Court f u r t h e r by a writ of record clearly trial i n the Clancy's the appeal of h i s t r a n s f e r hearing u n d e r Ex p a r t e Webb, 843 So. 2d 127 was final. ( A l a . 2002), as w e l l as R u l e 2 8 ( F ) , A l a . R. J u v . P., t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t h a d jurisdiction t o t r y and c o n v i c t C l a n c y o f murder. II. Clancy v. S t a t e , Crim. 2009)(table), order, issued transfer Court's d e c i s i o n i n Clancy (CR-07-1161, September 25, 2009) 57 So. 3d 200 ( A l a . App. transfer stay a l s o argues t h a t t h i s the juvenile i s v o i d b e c a u s e , he a r g u e s , on O c t o b e r order affirming 8, 2008. However, on S e p t e m b e r 25, 2009, t h i s court's i t v i o l a t e d the by a f f i r m i n g t h e Court l i f t e d t h e s t a y i t h a d i s s u e d on O c t o b e r 8, 2008. implicitly Therefore, t h e d e c i s i o n a f f i r m i n g t h e t r a n s f e r o r d e r was and c o n t i n u e s to be v a l i d . to try Accordingly, and c o n v i c t the c i r c u i t c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n Clancy. 10 CR-10-1228 For the foregoing reasons, t h e judgment of the c i r c u i t c o u r t i s due t o be a f f i r m e d . AFFIRMED. Windom, P . J . , a n d J o i n e r , J . , c o n c u r . JJ., concur i n the r e s u l t . 11 Welch and K e l l u m ,

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.