Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

758 So. 2d 1124

Ford v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Decided October 29, 1999

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · decided 1999-10-29

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 2012

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““If [a probationer] prefers to serve out his sentence, as originally imposed upon him, to a suspension of it by subjecting himself to the conditions nominated in the probation, he has the clear right to do so. But if he elects to accept the probation and avails himself of the liberty it confers, he must do so upon the conditions upon which alone it is granted to him. One of these conditions is that his sentence shall continue in fieri, and that the State shall have the power to execute it in full upon him should he forfeit the liberty and immunity conditionally secured to him by the order.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Goodson v. State

Relies on 31 Ala. App. 309 - Persall v. State · 624 So. 2d 238 - Cannon v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1999-10-29

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BASCHAB, Judge.

¶1The appellant, Orlando F. Ford, was charged with trafficking in marijuana. Pursuant to a negotiated agreement, he pled guilty to first-degree unlawful possession of marijuana, a violation of § 13A-12-*1125213, Ala.Code 1975, and stipulated that he had one prior felony conviction. The trial court sentenced him to serve five years in prison, but split the sentence and ordered him to serve 30 months in prison and the remainder on probation. The trial court also ordered him to pay a $2,000 fine pursuant to § 13A-12-281, Ala.Code 1975. This appeal followed.

¶2The appellant argues that the trial court erred when it ordered him to serve a split sentence because he had indicated that he did not wish to be considered for probation or for a split sentence.

“ ‘A probation is subject to rejection or acceptance by the convict. He has an unfettered election in that regard, and the court order is not effective or operative until it has been accepted by him. If he prefers to serve out his sentence, as originally imposed upon him, to a suspension of it by subjecting himself to the conditions nominated in the probation, he has the clear right to do so.’ ”

¶3Cannon v. State, 624 So.2d 238, 239 (Ala.Cr.App.1993) (quoting Persall v. State, 31 Ala.App. 309, 313, 16 So.2d 332, 335 (1944)) (emphasis added in Cannon). Prior to sentencing, defense counsel stated, “Judge, before sentence is imposed in this case, Mr. Ford has indicated to me he wishes not to be considered for a split sentence.” (R. 18.) After the trial court had ordered the appellant to serve a split sentence, the following exchange occurred:

“[Defense counsel]: Judge, in this case I specifically did not ask for probation because I knew the charge that he had been charged with and I knew that we did not wish him to be considered for probation or a split sentence.
“The Court: The sentence was up to the discretion of the court and the court has issued its sentence and would not change that. Thank you.”

¶4(R. 20-21.) Because the appellant did not accept the trial court’s offer of probation, we must remand this case to allow the trial court to resentence the appellant. On remand, the trial court shall not order probation unless the appellant indicates that he is willing to accept it. The trial court shall take all necessary action to see that the circuit clerk makes due return to this court at the earliest possible time and within 42 days of the release of this opinion. The return to remand shall include a transcript of the remand proceedings, if any, conducted by the trial court.

¶5REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

LONG, P.J., and McMILLAN, COBB, and FRY, JJ., concur.
/758/so2d/1124 · .json · Public domain