Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

574 So. 2d 1024

Jordan v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Decided October 26, 1990

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · decided 1990-10-26

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“file a motion for reconsideration based upon the [trial] court's consideration of allegedly improper facts at the sentence hearing,”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 611 So. 2d 1194 - Brown v. State, 629 So. 2d 51 - Nichols v. State

“object to his sentence at the sentence hearing”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 611 So. 2d 1194 - Brown v. State, 629 So. 2d 51 - Nichols v. State

Relies on Dossey v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1990-10-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 2018

12 state decisions

50199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

¶2Calvin Jordan was indicted for the unlawful distribution of a controlled substance in violation of § 13A-12-211, Code of Alabama 1975. Jordan pleaded guilty to the charge in the indictment and was sentenced to 15 years in the penitentiary. Two issues are raised on appeal.

¶3Initially, Jordan contends that the trial court committed reversible error in the sentencing phase by basing Jordan's sentence upon Jordan's alleged sale of controlled substances in a prior case in which there *1025 was no conviction. Secondly, Jordan contends that the indictment returned against him was returned by an unlawfully constituted grand jury and is therefore void.

¶4It is axiomatic that to preserve an assignment of error for appellate review, the alleged error must first be presented to the trial court. Dossey v. State, 489 So.2d 662 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 489 So.2d 662 (Ala. 1986). In the present case, Jordan did not object to his sentence at the sentencing hearing, nor did he file a motion for reconsideration based upon the court's consideration of allegedly improper facts at the sentencing hearing. Jordan, moreover, never raised the issue of the allegedly void indictment at any time during the proceedings below. Consequently, because these issues were not raised below, they have not been preserved for review at this time.

¶5The foregoing opinion was prepared by the Honorable JAMES H. FAULKNER, a retired Supreme Court Justice, and his opinion is hereby adopted as that of the court.

¶6The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

¶7AFFIRMED.

¶8All the Judges concur.

/574/so2d/1024 · .json · Public domain