Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

412 So. 2d 327

McGhee v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · decided 1982-03-23

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 1988

8 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[u]nless an accused actually admits his prior convictions, ... the State must prove his record in order to trigger the operation of the habitual offender sentencing provisions.”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including 547 So. 2d 894 - Stout v. State, 459 So. 2d 995 - Abbott v. State

“[A]n accused must be informed of the minimum and maximum possible sentence for his offense as an absolute constitutional prerequisite to acceptance of a guilty plea”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 459 So. 2d 995 - Abbott v. State

Relies on Carter v. State · Donahay v. State · 54 Ala. App. 463 - Moore v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1982-03-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

¶2On August 31, 1981, appellant entered guilty pleas to the following three offenses: theft of property in the second degree; possession of controlled substances, and theft of property in the first degree. He was sentenced to fifteen, five, and fifteen years, respectively, with the three sentences to be served concurrently.

¶3For the first offense appellant was advised by the trial court that the range of punishment "under the Habitual Offender Act" was fifteen years to life. Appellant answered "yes" to the trial judge's question regarding whether he understood he was accused "as an habitual offender." For the remaining two offenses appellant was not informed at all of the minimum and maximum punishments possible.

¶4The State offered no proof of any prior convictions. On appeal, the State argues that appellant's affirmative answer to the court's question whether he understood he could be sentenced as an habitual offender was a waiver of proof of prior felonies.

¶5In our judgment, no waiver can be inferred under these facts. An accused must be informed of the correct minimum and maximum sentences as an absolute constitutional prerequisite to acceptance of a guilty plea. Carter v. State, 291 Ala. 83,277 So.2d 896 (1973); Moore v. State, 54 Ala. App. 463,309 So.2d 500 (1975).

¶6From the record before us, we are unable to determine how many, if any, prior felony convictions appellant may have had. Thus, it is impossible to decide whether, on the first plea, the trial court's information regarding the minimum and maximum punishment "under the Habitual Offender Act" was correct. Additionally, on the last two pleas, there was no recitation of the punishment range for the offenses.

¶7Unless an accused actually admits his prior convictions, seeMiliner v. State, 414 So.2d 133, Ala.Cr.App., (1981), the State must prove his record in order to trigger the operation of the habitual offender sentencing provisions. See also Donahay v.State, 287 Ala. 716, 255 So.2d 599 (1971).

¶8The judgments of conviction are reversed and the causes remanded to the Etowah Circuit Court.

¶9REVERSED AND REMANDED.

¶10All the Judges concur. *329

/412/so2d/327 · .json · Public domain