Willie James Walker II, alias v. State of Alabama (Appeal from Mobile CircuitCourt:

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/03/2012 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-12-0036 Willie James Walker I I v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (CC11-5072) Court BURKE, J u d g e . On May 12, 2011, W i l l i e James W a l k e r I I was a r r e s t e d f o r d i s c h a r g i n g a f i r e a r m i n t o an o c c u p i e d was s e t a t $7,500. On November and charged w i t h the offense vehicle. Walker's bond 22, 2 0 1 1 , W a l k e r was i n d i c t e d o f d i s c h a r g i n g a f i r e a r m i n t o an CR-12-0036 occupied v e h i c l e , a v i o l a t i o n o f § 13A-11-61, A l a . Code 1975. On S e p t e m b e r 26, 2012, t h e c h a r g e was r e d u c e d t o m e n a c i n g , a violation o f § 13A-6-23, A l a . Code 1975, a n d W a l k e r pleaded guilty. He was s e n t e n c e d t o 12 months' i m p r i s o n m e n t a n d was ordered t o p a y a $100 f i n e pursuant to § and a b a i l - b o n d 12-19-311(a)(1)b., f e e o f $262.50 A l a . Code 1975. A t t h e sentencing h e a r i n g , defense counsel o b j e c t e d t o the assessment of t h e b a i l - b o n d fee, a r g u i n g t h a t t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f i t would be e x p o s t f a c t o l a w a n d n o t i n g t h a t W a l k e r d i d n o t make b o n d so t h e r e was no c o u r t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t i n v o l v e d . On O c t o b e r 4, 2012, W a l k e r f i l e d a m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e a s s e s s m e n t o f the bail-bond f e e , which the c i r c u i t court subsequently denied. On a p p e a l , imposition occurred him among o t h e r the bail-bond fee f o r h i s offense, b e c a u s e , he a r g u e s i t v i o l a t e s United that which t h e ex post facto clause i n t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n a n d i n A r t . I , §10, o f State C o n s t i t u t i o n , which p a r t : "No s t a t e s h a l l note things, that the on May 12, 2 0 1 1 , was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l as a p p l i e d t o contained the of Walker argues, on a p p e a l states, ... p a s s any ... e x p o s t the State i n pertinent facto law." We c o n c e d e s t h a t " [ a ] remand i s 2 CR-12-0036 necessary because the imposition of the bail bond fees p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n 12-19-311, Code o f A l a b a m a ( 1 9 7 5 ) i n t h i s c a s e v i o l a t e s t h e ex p o s t facto clause." (State's brief, at 5.) S e c t i o n 12-19-311, A l a . Code 1975, provides, i n pertinent part: " ( a ) ( 1 ) In a d d i t i o n t o a l taxes, or fees levied by a d d i t i o n a l f e e s as d e t a i l e d p a r a g r a p h b. s h a l l be i m p o s e d a l l courts of t h i s s t a t e . l other charges, c o s t s , law on bail bonds, i n p a r a g r a p h a. and on e v e r y b a i l b o n d i n "...The f e e s s h a l l be a s s e s s e d as f o l l o w s : " "b. F o r a m i s d e m e a n o r o f f e n s e , a b a i l b o n d f e e i n t h e amount o f 3.5 p e r c e n t o f the t o t a l f a c e v a l u e of the b a i l bond o r one h u n d r e d d o l l a r s ( $ 1 0 0 ) , w h i c h e v e r i s g r e a t e r , but not to exceed f o u r hundred f i f t y d o l l a r s ($450). For a felony offense, a b a i l b o n d f e e o f 3.5 p e r c e n t o f t h e t o t a l f a c e v a l u e o f t h e b a i l b o n d o r one h u n d r e d f i f t y d o l l a r s ($150), whichever i s greater, but not t o exceed seven hundred fifty d o l l a r s ($750). Except that i f a person i s released on a judicial public bail, r e c o g n i z a n c e , o r s i g n a t u r e bond, i n c l u d i n g a b o n d on e l e c t r o n i c t r a f f i c and n o n t r a f f i c citations, t h e f e e s h a l l be a f f i x e d a t t w e n t y - f i v e d o l l a r s ( $ 2 5 ) . For purposes of t h i s s e c t i o n , f a c e v a l u e o f b o n d s h a l l mean t h e b o n d amount s e t by c o u r t o r other 3 CR-12-0036 a u t h o r i t y a t r e l e a s e , n o t t h e amount p o s t e d a t r e l e a s e on b a i l . " " ( 2 ) ( c ) Upon t h e f a i l u r e t o p a y t h e f e e i n p a r a g r a p h a. o f s u b d i v i s i o n ( 1 ) o f s u b s e c t i o n ( a ) and upon a f i n d i n g o f c o n t e m p t i n s u b s e c t i o n ( d ) , t h e bondsman, s u r e t y , g u a r a n t y , or individuals r e q u i r e d t o p a y t h e f e e s h a l l be p u n i s h e d b y a f i n e of n o t l e s s than f i v e hundred d o l l a r s ($500) i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e f e e i m p o s e d i n p a r a g r a p h a. o f s u b d i v i s i o n ( 1 ) o f s u b s e c t i o n ( a ) . The f i n e s h a l l n o t be r e m i t t e d , w a i v e d , o r r e d u c e d u n l e s s t h e p e r s o n ( s ) f i n e d c a n show c a u s e t o t h e c o u r t t h a t he or she c a n n o t pay t h e f i n e i n the reasonably foreseeable future." S e c t i o n 1 2 - 1 9 - 3 1 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) b . , A l a . Code 1975, was a p p r o v e d b y t h e governor on May 22, 2012, a n d became e f f e c t i v e on A u g u s t 1, 2012. In Walker v. State, 433 So. 2d 469 ( A l a . 1983), the A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d t h e f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n o f ex p o s t f a c t o l a w : "An e x p o s t f a c t o l a w i s one w h i c h makes c r i m i n a l a n d p u n i s h e s an a c t w h i c h was done b e f o r e t h e p a s s a g e o f t h e l a w a n d w h i c h was i n n o c e n t when done, a g g r a v a t e s a c r i m e o r makes i t g r e a t e r t h a n i t was when c o m m i t t e d , c h a n g e s t h e p u n i s h m e n t a n d i n f l i c t s a g r e a t e r p u n i s h m e n t t h a n was p r e s c r i b e d when t h e c r i m e was c o m m i t t e d , o r a l t e r s t h e l e g a l r u l e s o f e v i d e n c e and r e c e i v e s l e s s o r d i f f e r e n t t e s t i m o n y t h a n was r e q u i r e d t o c o n v i c t a t t h e t i m e t h e o f f e n s e was c o m m i t t e d . " 4 CR-12-0036 Walker, 433 Dall.) 386, 2d 36 So. 31, Appeals 2d at 1 L.Ed. 471 648 (citing (1798)). ( A l a . C i v . App. Calder v. I n S a l t e r v. 2007), the Bull, 3 U.S. State, 971 Alabama C o u r t o f (3 So. Civil stated: " I n S m i t h v. Doe, 538 U.S. [84] a t 97, 123 S.Ct. 1140 [ ( 2 0 0 3 ) ] , t h e Supreme C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d that w h e t h e r a s t a t u t e v i o l a t e s t h e Ex P o s t F a c t o C l a u s e o r t h e D o u b l e J e o p a r d y C l a u s e depends on r e s o l u t i o n of the same question: Does the statute u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y impose a s e c o n d punishment f o r t h e same c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e ? I f t h e s t a t u t e i s m e r e l y i n t e n d e d by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o e s t a b l i s h a c i v i l r e g u l a t o r y scheme and i s n o t p u n i t i v e i n n a t u r e o r effect, i t will be u p h e l d as a constitutional e x e r c i s e o f l e g i s l a t i v e power. The p a r t y a s s e r t i n g t h e u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e s t a t u t e must show 'the c l e a r e s t p r o o f ' that a s t a t u t e intended to create a civil r e g u l a t o r y scheme i s a c t u a l l y a p u n i t i v e c r i m i n a l a c t . 538 U.S. a t 92, 123 S. C t . 1 1 r\ II 1140." A This C o u r t has stated that law p a s s e d a f t e r t h e "[a]n c o m m i s s i o n o f an ex p o s t f a c t o law act that increases l e g a l c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e a c t . " S t a t e v. C.M., 746 416 Youngwood, U.S. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 37, 110 S.Ct. 1 9 9 9 ) ( c i t i n g C o l l i n s v. 2715, 111 L.Ed.2d 2 6 . 1 1 ( c ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., provides other criminal cases costs in conviction," and Rule 26.11, A l a . that shall R. 30 So. (1990)). "[d]ocket be fees assessed C r i m . P., states " [ c ] o u r t c o s t s s h a l l be deemed p a r t o f t h e p e n a l t y . " 5 2d is a the 410, 497 Rule and upon that In Dixon CR-12-0036 v. S t a t e , 920 stated fine, that are 2d 1122 restitution components Likewise, 104 So. ( A l a . C r i m . App. and of a 2005), t h i s s t a t u t o r y assessments, sentence. 920 So. 2d i n C i t i z e n s h i p T r u s t v. K e d d i e - H i l l , 68 (Ala. 2011), statutory $12 the Court Alabama DNA-database Supreme fee as Court part like at a 1130. So. 3d 99, recognized of the a criminal sentence. I n C a l d w e l l v. S t a t e , 55 A l a . 133, A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t "any the 136 ( A l a . 1876), statute enacted c o m m i s s i o n o f an o f f e n s e , w h i c h i n c r e a s e s t h e a d j u d g e d on c o n v i c t i o n , n e c e s s a r i l y i n c r e a s e s the 205 F.3d statutory for each (11th C i r . 2000), the s p e c i a l a s s e s s m e n t amount o f of Prather's a s s e s s m e n t amount h a d date of States district offenses; $100 offenses, b e e n r a i s e d f r o m $50 the commission of Prather's Court of Appeals f o r the 11th Prather, court levied against however, the t o $100 offenses. Circuit be punishment f a c t o . " A d d i t i o n a l l y , i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v. 1265 after cost to on non-payment. Such s t a t u t e , when a p p l i e d t o p a s t i s ex p o s t the a Prather special after The the United remanded the case f o r r e c a l c u l a t i o n of a s p e c i a l assessment at the r a t e of $50 per count "[b]ecause the Ex 6 Post Facto Clause of the CR-12-0036 Constitution forbids retroactive s a n c t i o n s " . 205 F.3d a t 1272; 489 F.3d 2 4 3 , 254 application See a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s v. J o n e s , (6th C i r . 2007) ( f i n d i n g e n t i t l e d to the benefit of the previous $50 p e r f e l o n y because of c r i m i n a l he c o m m i t t e d that Jones was a s s e s s m e n t amount o f h i s crimes before the i n c r e a s e a n d a p p l y i n g t h e $100 a s s e s s m e n t w o u l d v i o l a t e t h e Ex Post Facto Clause). In t h e p r e s e n t case, W a l k e r was a r r e s t e d f o r t h e o f f e n s e on May 12, 2012, w h i c h was b e f o r e t h e s t a t u t e , § 12-19-311, Ala. Thus, t h e c i r c u i t Code 1975, became e f f e c t i v e . imposition of the bail-bond fee pursuant to § court's 12-19-311 v i o l a t e d t h e e x p o s t f a c t o c l a u s e . A c c o r d i n g l y , we remand t h i s case t o t h e c i r c u i t court with sentence the imposition of the bail-bond t o exclude d i r e c t i o n s t o amend W a l k e r ' s fee i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n . Due r e t u r n s h a l l be made t o t h i s Court within 21 days of t h e date of the release of this opinion. REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Windom, P . J . , a n d K e l l u m a n d J o i n e r , J J . , c o n c u r . J., concurs i n the r e s u l t . 7 Welch,

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.