Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

678 So. 2d 1046

Ex Parte Richardson

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 22, 1995

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1995-11-22

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““This case is strikingly similar to Ex parte Johnson, 669 So.2d 205 (Ala.1995). In that case, ... I joined Justice Houston’s dissent, which stated that ‘an assistant district attorney cannot, by inadvertence, undermine the legislature’s authority to establish sentencing ranges.’ 669 So.2d at 207 . As in Johnson, the majority in this case overlooks the mandatory aspect of the sentence enhancement statutes as established by the legislature.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Bridges v. State

Relies on State v. Ackerman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1995-11-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 2015

7 state decisions

30199520002010decided

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

¶2This case is strikingly similar to Ex parte Johnson,669 So.2d 205 (Ala. 1995). In that case, Justice Butts and I joined Justice Houston's dissent, which stated that "an assistant district attorney cannot, by inadvertence, undermine the legislature's authority to establish sentencing ranges." 669 So.2d at 207. As in Johnson, the majority in this *1049 case overlooks the mandatory aspect of the sentence enhancement statutes as established by the legislature.1 I also point out that the defendant was not sentenced to a term in excess of what she agreed to in the plea agreement, seven years. So how was she prejudiced by the failure to "mention" the enhancement in the plea negotiations? I do not believe that she was prejudiced. Based on the foregoing, I must respectfully dissent.

¶3

1 The particular sentence-enhancement statute applicable here states:

¶4 "In addition to any penalties heretofore or hereafterprovided by law for any person convicted of an unlawful saleof a controlled substance, there is hereby imposed a penaltyof five years incarceration in a state corrections facility with no provision for probation if the situs of such unlawful sale was on the campus or within a three-mile radius of the campus boundaries of any public or private school, college, university or other educational institution in this state."

¶5§ 13A-12-250, Ala. Code 1975 (emphasis added).

/678/so2d/1046 · .json · Public domain