Harold Frost v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/02/2012 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-11-1216 Harold Frost v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Coffee C i r c u i t Court (CC-07-209.80; CC-07-210.80; CC-07-212.80) BURKE, J u d g e . H a r o l d F r o s t p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o two c o u n t s o f s e x u a l abuse o f a c h i l d l e s s t h a n 12 y e a r s o l d , See §13A-6-69.1, A l a . Code 1975. F r o s t was s e n t e n c e d t o 20 y e a r s ' i m p r i s o n m e n t on e a c h c h a r g e ; t h e s e n t e n c e s were t o r u n c o n c u r r e n t l y . F r o s t was CR-11-1216 ordered to pay $50 to the Alabama Victims C o m m i s s i o n , and t o r e g i s t e r as a s e x o f f e n d e r all sex-offender Compensation and c o m p l y w i t h r e g i s t r a t i o n and n o t i f i c a t i o n l a w s upon h i s r e l e a s e . He was a l s o o r d e r e d t o s u b m i t t o a DNA permanently enjoined restrained and i n d i r e c t contact with the v i c t i m s . from s a m p l e and was having d i r e c t or Frost subsequently a m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w h i s g u i l t y p l e a s ; t h a t m o t i o n was by t h e c i r c u i t court. This On November 19, 2007, denied appeal f o l l o w s . F r o s t was C o u n t y g r a n d j u r y i n Case No. sodomy. filed i n d i c t e d by t h e Coffee CC-07-209.80 f o r f i r s t - d e g r e e F r o s t was a l s o i n d i c t e d i n Case No. CC-07-210.80 f o r one c o u n t o f s e x u a l abuse o f a c h i l d l e s s t h a n 12 y e a r s o l d , and i n Case No. CC-07-212.80 f o r one c o u n t o f s e x u a l abuse o f a c h i l d l e s s t h a n 12 y e a r s o l d . On March entered agreed 8, 2012, a f t e r t h e j u r y was empaneled, i n t o a p l e a agreement w i t h the S t a t e , to enter abuse o f a c h i l d a guilty plea t o t h e two sexual l e s s t h a n 12 y e a r s o l d , i n Case No. CC-07- Case No. to nol-pros the charge CC-07-209.80. 2 counts Frost of 210.80 and Case No. CC-07-212.80, agreement i n which Frost i n exchange f o r t h e S t a t e ' s o f f i r s t - d e g r e e sodomy i n CR-11-1216 On A p r i l guilty 5, 2012, F r o s t pleas. requested As b e s t that filed we a motion t o withdraw h i s can determine, he be a l l o w e d t o withdraw Frost's motion h i s pleas on t h e f o l l o w i n g g r o u n d s : 1 ) the a s s i s t a n t d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y had been allowed t o " s t a c k " t h e j u r y w i t h m o s t l y women, w h i c h was an u n f a i r d i s a d v a n t a g e t o h i m b e c a u s e t h e v i c t i m s o f s e x u a l abuse are p r e d o m i n a n t l y women; 2 ) t h a t w h i c h was n o l - p r o s s e d result of police investigation, as p a r t of the plea conspiracy the police t h e rape case a g a i n s t him, and, had a g r e e m e n t , was a during violated the initial h i s rights i m p r o p e r l y d e t a i n i n g him and h i s p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y by separately, w h i c h l e d h i m t o make an i n v o l u n t a r y i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t out of fear and investigators; and 3 ) t h a t subpoenaed f o r t r i a l scheduled t o begin n o t have a f a i r On A p r i l because until he was threatened h i s primary witnesses the Thursday before by the were n o t h i s t r i a l was on t h e f o l l o w i n g Monday, a n d t h a t he c o u l d trial without his witnesses. 12, 2012, t h e c i r c u i t court summarily denied F r o s t ' s motion t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y pleas, s t a t i n g that the c o u r t had conducted a c o l l o q u y and had d e t e r m i n e d t h a t knowingly, v o l u n t a r i l y , and i n t e l l i g e n t l y 3 entered Frost h i s pleas CR-11-1216 a f t e r c o n s u l t i n g w i t h h i s a t t o r n e y . The Frost had trial, waived any right to court also noted that appeal, his right witnesses On appeal, brief. In against Frost his reply raised four issues in Frost brief, 1100465, S e p t e m b e r 7, requires that, withdraw before counsel, argues that the if a ___ defendant his circuit 2012] attorney defendant must So. files of his 3d ___ a record pro must be determine Pritchett, ( A l a . 2012), motion withdraws on as the submits t h a t at the represented that recent the by counsel defendant or has I n Ex parte motion hearing, the trial knowingly, trial that Pritchett, requires the A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t that a defendant be c o u n s e l o r t h a t he v a l i d l y w a i v e t h a t r i g h t . The determined that, and se. that a motion to withdraw a g u i l t y p l e a i s a c r i t i c a l a to his i n t e l l i g e n t l y , and v o l u n t a r i l y w a i v e d h i s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l wishes to proceed pro to original the se c o u r t must h o l d a h e a r i n g t o w i t h d r a w t h e g u i l t y p l e a . He court jury him. d e c i s i o n o f t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t i n Ex p a r t e the a h i s r i g h t a g a i n s t s e l f i n c r i m i n a t i o n , and h i s r i g h t confront [Ms. to although Pritchett 4 was noted stage of represented by Court f u r t h e r represented by an CR-11-1216 attorney of record representation that the when he c o u l d not be motion was filed pro se motion, p r e s u m e d b e c a u s e " i t was prepared P r i t c h e t t w i t h o u t the involvement at his and relief was clear sought of t h a t c o u n s e l . " . I n t h i s c a s e , as i n Ex p a r t e P r i t c h e t t , the So. by 3d the motion to w i t h d r a w was h a n d w r i t t e n . A l t h o u g h u n l i k e P r i t c h e t t , F r o s t d i d not allege i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s of counsel in his motion w i t h d r a w , he d i d a l l e g e i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s on a p p e a l . as t h e Supreme C o u r t 2d 127, s t a t e d , q u o t i n g B e r r y v. 129-30 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 5 Moreover, S t a t e , 630 1993), i n r e l e v a n t p a r t : "'The r i g h t t o c o u n s e l does n o t d e p e n d upon a r e q u e s t by t h e a c c u s e d . B r e w e r v. W i l l i a m s , 430 U.S. 387, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 51 L.Ed. 2d 424 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ; K i t c h e n s v. S m i t h , 401 U.S. 847, 91 S.Ct. 1089, 28 L.Ed. 2d 519 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . " [ I ] f an a c c u s e d does n o t w a i v e c o u n s e l and does n o t r e t a i n acceptable c o u n s e l , t h e c o u r t must a p p o i n t c o u n s e l . " U n i t e d S t a t e s v. T u r n b u l l , 888 F.2d 636, 638 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 8 9 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 498 U.S. 825, 111 S.Ct. 78, 112 L.Ed. 2d 51 ( 1 9 9 0 ) . I f a defendant i n a c r i m i n a l proceeding i s n o t r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l , t h e s t a t e must p r o v e an i n t e n t i o n a l r e l i n q u i s h m e n t o f t h a t r i g h t . J o h n s o n v. Z e r b s t , 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 ( 1 9 3 8 ) . I f an accused waives h i s r i g h t to counsel, t h a t waiver must be intelligently and u n d e r s t a n d i n g l y made and c a n n o t be p r e s u m e d f r o m a s i l e n t r e c o r d . C a r n l e y v. C o c h r a n , 369 U.S. 506, 82 S.Ct. 884, 8 L.Ed. 2d 70 (1962). to So. CR-11-1216 "'"But i t i s s e t t l e d that where t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l is a constitutional requisite, t h e r i g h t t o be f u r n i s h e d c o u n s e l does n o t d e p e n d on a r e q u e s t "'"... P r e s u m i n g w a i v e r f r o m a s i l e n t record i s impermissible. The r e c o r d must show, o r t h e r e must be an allegation and evidence which show, that an a c c u s e d was o f f e r e d c o u n s e l b u t i n t e l l i g e n t l y and u n d e r s t a n d i n g l y r e j e c t e d the o f f e r . Anything l e s s i s not waiver." "'Id. a t 513-16, 82 S.Ct. a t 889-90. " ' "'In reviewing the record i n the i n s t a n t c a s e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e h e a r i n g , insofar as the a p p e l l a n t ' s motion to w i t h d r a w h i s g u i l t y p l e a was r e v i e w e d , was a critical stage in the judicial p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t r e q u i r e d t h a t he have t h e assistance of counsel during that p r o c e e d i n g o r t h a t he have v a l i d l y w a i v e d s u c h a s s i s t a n c e . The r e c o r d shows and we f i n d t h a t he d i d n o t have t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l , and no w a i v e r i s r e f l e c t e d on t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s . B e c a u s e we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e h e a r i n g was a c r i t i c a l s t a g e o f t h e proceeding, involving the appellant's s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t was r e q u i r e d to advise the appellant of h i s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l and t o e n s u r e t h a t c o u n s e l was p r o v i d e d o r t o a s c e r t a i n i f t h e r i g h t t o c o u n s e l h a d been w a i v e d . On t h e r e c o r d 6 CR-11-1216 b e f o r e u s , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l did neither.'" So. 3d a t court . A l t h o u g h F r o s t f a i l e d t o r a i s e t h e c l a i m t h a t he was n o t properly represented by counsel o r shown t o have w a i v e d r i g h t i n h i s o r i g i n a l b r i e f t o t h i s C o u r t on a p p e a l , this matter a f f e c t s a t r i a l accused and has been held court's 1 that because a u t h o r i t y t o c o n v i c t an to constitute m a t t e r , we r e a c h t h i s m a t t e r on a p p e a l . a jurisdictional I n Thomas v . S t a t e , 8 So. 3d 1018 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 8 ) , t h i s C o u r t stated: "Thomas c o n t e n d s t h a t he d i d n o t k n o w i n g l y , i n t e l l i g e n t l y and v o l u n t a r i l y waive h i s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l , a n d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d n o t have l e t him represent h i m s e l f w i t h o u t f i r s t warning him o f t h e d a n g e r s o f s e l f - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , as r e q u i r e d by F a r e t t a v. C a l i f o r n i a , 422 U.S. 806, 95 S . C t . 2525, 45 L.Ed. 2d 562 ( 1 9 7 5 ) . I n r e s p o n s e , t h e S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t Thomas d i d n o t p r e s e r v e t h e i s s u e f o r appellate review. "The State's position i s without merit. Deprivation of the right to counsel is a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l b a r t o a v a l i d p r o s e c u t i o n and, t h u s , i t c a n be r a i s e d a t any t i m e . See W o o d r u f f v. C i t y o f P e l h a m, 1 So. 3d 157, 159 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2008) (and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n ) . Crim. " I n B a k e r v. S t a t e , 933 So. 2d 406, 408-09 ( A l a . App. 2005), this Court discussed the " [ I ] s s u e s r a i s e d f o r the f i r s t time i n a r e p l y b r i e f are p r o p e r l y s u b j e c t t o a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w . " Ex p a r t e P o w e l l , So. 2d 434, 435 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . 1 not 796 7 CR-11-1216 j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r e r e q u i s i t e as i t r e l a t e s i s s u e o f r i g h t t o c o u n s e l as f o l l o w s : to the "'"A d e f e n d a n t ' s d e c i s i o n t o r e p r e s e n t himself n e c e s s a r i l y involves the waiver of h i s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l . See F i t z p a t r i c k v. W a i n w r i g h t , 800 F.2d 1057, 1064 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . I n P r a t t v. S t a t e , 851 So. 2d 142, 144-45 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 2 ) , t h i s C o u r t p o i n t e d out: " ' " ' " T h e constitutional 'right to counsel, or waiver t h e re o f , is an e s s e n t i a l ju r i s d i c t i o n a l prerequisite to the a u t h o r i t y t o c o n v i c t an a c c u s e d [ , and c]onviction without this safeguard is void. ' People v. Carroll, 14 0 Cal.App. 3d 135, 140, 189 Cal.Rptr. 327, 331 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.), c e r t . d e n i e d , 464 U.S. 820, 104 S . C t . 83, 78 L.Ed. 2d 93 (1983) (citing Johnson v. Z e r b s t [ , 304 U.S. 458, 58 S . C t . 1019, 82 L . E d . 1461 ( 1 9 3 8 ) ] ) . U n l e s s a d e f e n d a n t has o r waives assistance of counsel, t h e S i x t h Amendment i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l bar to a v a l i d c o n v i c t i o n and sentence. Johnson v. 0 4 - ^ 1 , ^ ^ Zerbst; Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 8 CR-11-1216 1567 (11th C i r . 1992); Boruff ^ United States, 310 F.2d 918 (5th C i r . 1962). See also Lancaster v. State, [638 So. 2d 1370, 1373] ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1993) ('the appellant's ... right to ha ve c o uns e l a p p o i n t e d on a p p e a l [ i s a ] j u r i s d i c t i o na l matter[]'); Lake v. C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , 3 90 So. 2d 36, 38 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980) (a record failing to reveal any of the c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r rou nd in g th e a p p e l l a n t ' s self-representation ' w i l l not support the t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment wherein the appellant was s e n t e n c e d t o a l o s s of l i b e r t y ' ) . " " ' " ' B e r r y v. S t a t e , 630 So. 2d 127, 130 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1993) (footnote omitted). See also C u s t i s v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 511 U.S. 485, 494, 114 S.Ct. 1732, 128 L.Ed. 2d 517 (1994) ("'If the a c c u s e d ... i s n o t r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l and has n o t c o m p e t e n t l y and i n t e l l i g e n t l y waived his c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t , the S i x t h Amendment stands as a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l bar to a v a l i d c o n v i c t i o n and s e n t e n c e d e p r i v i n g him of his life or his 9 CR-11-1216 liberty The judgment of c o n v i c t i o n p r o n o u n c e d by a c o u r t w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n i s v o i d , and one imprisoned thereunder may obtain release by habeas corpus.'") (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 ( 1 9 3 8 ) ) ; W e a k l e y v. S t a t e , 721 So. 2d 235, 236 (Ala. 1998) (holding that the right to counsel at arraignment is a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l matter).' "'"Thus i t i s t h e l a c k o f c o u n s e l , coupled with the absence of a knowing and i n t e l l i g e n t waiver thereof, that acts to deny the defendant counsel and to j u r i s d i c t i o n a l l y bar h i s p r o s e c u t i o n . " ' " 8 So. 3d a t 1019. C r i m . App. (Ala. C r i m . App. the t r i a l pleas at p u r s u a n t t o Ex p a r t e and which trial intelligently, Due this Frost court and r e t u r n s h a l l be issuance of A t t a l l a , 88 So. Ala. 3d 930 2011). i s reversed, the City 3d 764 Pritchett, the order court denying F r o s t ' s motion to withdraw h i s motion which a l s o Powers v. S t a t e , 38 So. 2 0 0 9 ) ; P r e s l e y v. Therefore, his See of t h i s of guilty c a s e i s remanded f o r a h e a r i n g on i s represented at determines voluntarily made t o t h i s opinion. 10 that by Frost waived h i s counsel has right or knowingly, to counsel. c o u r t w i t h i n 35 d a y s o f the CR-11-1216 REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Windom, P . J . , a n d W e l c h , K e l l u m , a n d J o i n e r , J J . , c o n c u r . 11

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.