Allen Little, 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 f o r m a l 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 , A l a b a m a 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-11-0365 Allen L i t t l e v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court (CC-10-1318) JOINER, Judge. Allen Little appeals h i s guilty-plea f i r s t - d e g r e e possession of marijuana, convictionf o r s e e § 13A-12-213, A l a . Code 1975. We a f f i r m i n p a r t , r e v e r s e i n p a r t , a n d remand. CR-11-0365 Little, a result federal for of a l o n g w i t h 12 o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s , was federal-wiretap evidence obtained i n v e s t i g a t i o n of distributing large a group of amounts o f Montgomery C o u n t y . L i t t l e , the trial court motion, L i t t l e to i n d i c t e d as pursuant to a individuals responsible cocaine and marijuana in a l o n g w i t h h i s c o d e f e n d a n t s , moved suppress the wiretap evidence. In his a r g u e d , i n r e l e v a n t p a r t , as f o l l o w s : " L i t t l e i s e n t i t l e d to s u p p r e s s i o n of t h a t evidence b e c a u s e A l a b a m a l a w does n o t p e r m i t s u c h [ f e d e r a l w i r e t a p e v i d e n c e ] ; because the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and federal statutory requirements to obtain authorization to i n t e r c e p t e l e c t r o n i c and wire communications include a showing that such interceptions are 'necessary' and that normal i n v e s t i g a t i v e p r o c e d u r e s have f a i l e d , w i l l f a i l , o r a r e t o o d a n g e r o u s were n o t met i n t h i s c a s e [ ; ] and b e c a u s e t h e g o v e r n m e n t a g e n t s who managed t o p r o c u r e a u t h o r i z a t i o n s from a f e d e r a l c o u r t r e v i e w i n g t h e i r applications f o r i n t e r c e p t i o n of communications f a i l e d to provide that court with a ' f u l l and c o m p l e t e ' statement of the i n v e s t i g a t i v e steps already undertaken. These deficiencies, i n d e p e n d e n t l y and c o m b i n e d , r e q u i r e s u p p r e s s i o n o f the i n t e r c e p t e d communications." (C. 27-36.) F o l l o w i n g Little's motion to a hearing, suppress. agreement, L i t t l e p l e a d e d indictment--first-degree (C. the trial 243.) court Pursuant to denied a plea g u i l t y to the o f f e n s e charged i n the possession of marijuana. a c c o r d a n c e w i t h h i s p l e a a g r e e m e n t , L i t t l e was 2 sentenced to In 20 CR-11-0365 years' imprisonment--which was suspended--and 5 years' p r o b a t i o n . (R. 70.) L i t t l e r e s e r v e d f o r a p p e l l a t e review the d e n i a l of h i s motion t o suppress. (R. On appeal, obtained from Little a 71.) continues argue wiretap federal to is not that "evidence admissible i n an A l a b a m a s t a t e c o u r t " and t h a t " i f e v i d e n c e f r o m a w i r e t a p i s e v e r a d m i s s i b l e i n an A l a b a m a s t a t e c o u r t , i t i s n o t i n t h i s case because a wiretap (Little's brief, pending, however, identical pp. this and not 7.) Court ( A l a . Crim. shown While addressed a r g u m e n t s r a i s e d by See C a b b l e v. S t a t e , 3d 3 was one to and rejected of L i t t l e ' s 24, was nearly codefendants. 2012] this So. held t h a t w i r e t a p e v i d e n c e i s a d m i s s i b l e i n A l a b a m a and, a l s o , that and In Cabble, appeal Court the a f f i d a v i t s 2012) . necessary." Little's [Ms. CR-11-0061, Aug. App. be orders w i t h r e s p e c t to the w i r e t a p s - - t h e same a f f i d a v i t s , o r d e r s , and w i r e t a p e v i d e n c e i n q u e s t i o n i n this sufficient. case--were Accordingly, Little's c o n v i c t i o n i s due Although sentence arguments t o be neither is illegal. Cabble, So. 3d at a r e w i t h o u t m e r i t , and . his affirmed. p a r t y addresses See Austin 3 v. i t , however, State, 864 So. Little's 2d 1145 CR-11-0365 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) ("Matters concerning unauthorized s e n t e n c e s a r e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l ; t h e r e f o r e , we may an illegal sentence omitted.)). L i t t l e a g r e e m e n t t o 20 its entirety. jurisdiction Code 1975 execution found guilty imprisonment was time." (R. 70.) citations sentenced i n accordance w i t h h i s p l e a The trial w h i c h was suspended c o u r t , h o w e v e r , was in without t o impose s u c h a s e n t e n c e . See § 15-22-50, A l a . court sentence and shall imposed whose i n the have no power upon any punishment penitentiary (Emphasis added.)). the court for resentencing. trial ( Q u o t a t i o n s and y e a r s ' imprisonment, ("The of 1 a t any take n o t i c e of is to suspend the person who has fixed at death f o r more than 15 been or years." A c c o r d i n g l y , t h i s m a t t e r i s remanded t o 2 The c i r c u i t court shall A l t h o u g h i t i s n o t r e f l e c t e d on t h e s e n t e n c i n g o r d e r , L i t t l e was s e n t e n c e d as an h a b i t u a l f e l o n y o f f e n d e r w i t h t h r e e p r i o r f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n s . (C. 2 5 3 ; R. 69.) 1 We r e c o g n i z e t h a t a d e f e n d a n t who i s n o t s e n t e n c e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h h i s p l e a a g r e e m e n t may be e n t i t l e d t o w i t h d r a w h i s g u i l t y p l e a . Andrews v. S t a t e , 12 So. 3d 728 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . Such a m o t i o n may be made p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 14, A l a . R. C r i m . P., o r may be r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e i n a timely f i l e d p e t i t i o n f o r postconviction r e l i e f pursuant to R u l e 32, A l a . R. C r i m . P. See g e n e r a l l y C a n t u v. S t a t e , 660 So. 2d 1026, 1029 ( A l a . 1994) ("We h o l d t h a t even t h o u g h a d e f e n d a n t c o u l d f i l e a m o t i o n u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f R u l e 14 t o w i t h d r a w a p l e a o f g u i l t y and c o u l d a p p e a l a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on t h a t m o t i o n , t h e d e f e n d a n t w o u l d n o t be p r e c l u d e d 2 4 CR-11-0365 t a k e a l l n e c e s s a r y a c t i o n t o s e e t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c l e r k makes due return to this Court at the e a r l i e s t w i t h i n 42 d a y s a f t e r t h e r e l e a s e For court the foregoing i s affirmed of this reasons, i n part and r e v e r s e d IN PART; REVERSED IN time and opinion. t h e judgment of the t r i a l i n part remanded f o r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h AFFIRMED possible this PART; and t h e case opinion. REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Windom, P . J . , a n d W e l c h , K e l l u m , a n d B u r k e , J J . , c o n c u r . from r a i s i n g , i n a t i m e l y f i l e d p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n p r o c e e d i n g , the q u e s t i o n o f t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f t h e g u i l t y p l e a . " ) . 5

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.