Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

823 So. 2d 1285

Williams v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Decided September 28, 2001

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · decided 2001-09-28

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 2005

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"On return to remand, the circuit court has attached copies of the two indictments. The two indictments read as follows: "`[Pritchett] did, in the course of committing a theft of Four Hundred Sixty Three Dollars and Twenty-Two Cents of the lawful currency of the United States of America, a more particular description and denomination of which is to the grand jury otherwise unknown, the property of Paul Shrove, use force against the person of Paul Shrove, or against the person of another present, with intent to overcome his physical resistance or physical power of resistance, while the said [Pritchett] was armed with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, to wit: a shotgun, in violation of Section 13A-8-41 of the Alabama Criminal Code.'" "__________ "`[Pritchett] did, in the course of committing a theft of Four Hundred Fifty One Dollars of the lawful currency of the United States of America, a more particular description and denomination of which is to the grand jury otherwise unknown, the property of Robert Woods, threaten the imminent use of force against the person of Robert Woods, with the intent to compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property, while the said [Pritchett] was armed with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, to wit: a sawed-off shotgun, in violation of Section 13A-8-41 of the Alabama Criminal Code.' "Thus, the indictments do not contain any factual allegations that Pritchett was aided in the commission of the robbery by another per”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Ex Parte State, 881 So. 2d 1070 - Toliver v. State

Relies on 529 So. 2d 1074 - Ross v. State · 612 So. 2d 1317 - Ford v. State · 649 So. 2d 216 - Glover v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-09-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

¶2The appellant, Walter Earl Williams, appeals from the trial court's summary denial of his Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition, challenging his 1982 conviction and 14-year sentence for second-degree robbery. He argues that the trial court improperly amended the indictment charging him with first-degree robbery to charge second-degree robbery, and, thus, that the trial court was without jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea to second-degree robbery. The appellant contends that second-degree robbery was not a lesser offense included within first-degree robbery because, he claims, that he was not aided by another person in committing the offense.

¶3 "A trial court does not have authority to accept a guilty plea to an offense not encompassed in the indictment. Edwards v. State, 671 So.2d 129 (Ala.Cr.App. 1995); Glover v. State, 649 So.2d 216 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994); Ford v. State, 612 So.2d 1317 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992); Ross v. State, 529 So.2d 1074 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988). See Rule 13.5(a), Ala.R.Crim.P. `When the trial court accepts a guilty plea under such circumstances, the court's judgment is void, because the

*1286
defendant is convicted of an offense for which the defendant has not been indicted and an essential requirement of jurisdiction is therefore missing.' Edwards, 671 So.2d at 130."

¶4Howard v. State, 710 So.2d 456, 459 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996).

¶5"Robbery in the second degree is not a lesser included offense of robbery in the first degree, unless the defendant is aided in the commission of the robbery by another person actually present and a participant in the robbery is armed with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or causes physical injury to another." Howard, 710 So.2d at 458. In the present case, the trial judge should determine whether the appellant acted alone. If he determines that the appellant did act alone, then the judgment is void and due to be set aside, because the appellant pleaded guilty to an offense not included in the indictment, and, thus, the trial court was without jurisdiction to accept the plea. The appellant should be permitted to withdraw his plea, and the State is free to reindict the appellant for the proper offense. The trial court is directed to make due return to this Court within 28 days of the release of this opinion. The return should include a transcript of any remand proceedings and a copy of the trial court's findings of fact.

¶6This cause is therefore remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶7REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

¶8Cobb, Baschab, Shaw, and Wise, JJ., concur.

/823/so2d/1285 · .json · Public domain