Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

497 So. 2d 235

Byrd v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Decided September 9, 1986

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · decided 1986-09-09

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1990

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"[W]e find that to require the trial court to call appellant back before it for the purpose of advising him again of his right to request youthful offender status, knowing that the request would be denied, would amount to ordering the court to perform a useless act, which we are not disposed to do. It is clear that the failure of the trial court in the instant case to expressly advise appellant of the provisions of the Youthful Offender Act, in view of the proceedings in the previous case [in which youthful offender treatment was denied], and the statement of the trial court that had the request been renewed in the present case, it would have been denied, did not result in prejudice to appellant, and if indeed it constituted error, it was error without injury."”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 566 So. 2d 502 - Pardue v. State

“act in accordance with [defendant's] response”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 565 So. 2d 294 - Lochli v. State

Relies on 47 Ala. App. 65 - Ireland v. State · Clemmons v. State · 55 Ala. App. 575 - Pride v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-09-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

¶2This appeal follows appellant's conviction for the offense of assault in the second degree, which was entered pursuant to a plea of guilty, and the resulting sentence of ten years' imprisonment and a $25 fine.

¶3Upon review of appellant's contentions for reversal, we find that only one merits our attention: "Whether the trial court erred in failing to advise the appellant of his rights as a youthful offender?"

¶4The "Ireland"1 form filed upon appellant's plea of guilty and appellant's answer upon the trial court's inquiry during the guilty plea proceeding reflect that appellant is twenty years of age. However, the record is silent as to whether appellant was informed of the benefits of the Youthful Offender Act. Sometime prior to the acceptance of appellant's plea, appellant should have been apprised of his right to request youthful offender status. Pride v. State, 55 Ala. App. 575, 317 So.2d 541 (1974), aff'd, 294 Ala. 359, 317 So.2d 542 (1975).

¶5Accordingly, we remand this cause with directions to the trial court to determine whether, prior to the guilty plea proceedings, appellant was apprised by the trial court of his right to request youthful offender status and, if such was not done, the court shall bring appellant before it, inform him of the provisions of the Youthful Offender Act, and act in accordance with appellant's response. See Clemmons v. State,294 Ala. 746, 749-50, 321 So.2d 238, 242 (1975). Thereafter, the trial court shall make written findings, which, along with a copy of the record of the hearing, shall then be filed with this court.

¶6REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

¶7All Judges concur.

¶8

1Ireland v. State, 47 Ala. App. 65, 250 So.2d 602 (1971).
*236

/497/so2d/235 · .json · Public domain