Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

899 So. 2d 1023

Childers v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Decided December 2, 2003

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · decided 2003-12-02

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 2007

8 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"The record contains a copy of the transcript of Childers's guilty-plea proceedings. This transcript reveals that during the colloquy, Childers admitted that he committed the robbery with two accomplices. However, Childers's indictment for first-degree robbery does not allege facts indicating that he was aided in this offense by another participant, and the record shows that the indictment was never amended to include the fact that he was aided by other persons in the robbery. Ex parte Cole , 842 So.2d 605 (Ala. 2002). Therefore, the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to accept Childers's guilty plea to a charge of second-degree robbery , and its denial of his Rule 32 petition was in error. See Toliver v. State , 881 So.2d 1070 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003)."”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Childers v. State

Relies on Ex Parte Cole · 881 So. 2d 1070 - Toliver v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2003-12-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

¶2The appellant, Jimmy Allen Childers, appeals the Jefferson Circuit Court's denial of his Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition, attacking his 1986 conviction for second-degree robbery and his sentence of three years' imprisonment in the state penitentiary.

¶3The record on appeal reveals that Childers was indicted for first-degree robbery, and that pursuant to a plea agreement with the State he pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of second-degree robbery. He did not appeal his conviction. He has now filed a petition seeking postconviction relief.

¶4In his Rule 32 petition, Childers argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea to a reduced charge of second-degree robbery. He claimed that, under the facts of his case, second-degree robbery was not a lesser offense of first-degree robbery, the charge for which he was indicted. The State moved to dismiss, arguing that the trial court properly accepted Childers's guilty plea because second-degree robbery was a lesser-included offense within the offense of first-degree robbery under the facts of this case. The State further alleged that the petition was procedurally barred by Rules 32.2(a)(3) and (c), Ala. R.Crim. P. The trial court thereafter summarily denied the petition.

¶5The record contains a copy of the transcript of Childers's guilty-plea proceedings. This transcript reveals that during the colloquy, Childers admitted that he committed the robbery with two accomplices. However, Childers's indictment for first-degree robbery does not allege facts indicating that he was aided in this offense by another participant, and the record shows that the indictment was never amended to include the fact that he was aided by other persons in the robbery. Ex parte Cole,842 So.2d 605 (Ala. 2002). Therefore, the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to accept Childers' guilty plea to a charge of second-degree robbery, and its denial of his Rule 32 petition was in error. See Toliver v. State, 881 So.2d 1070 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003).

¶6Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court summarily dismissing Childers's Rule 32 petition is reversed, and this matter remanded for that *1025 court to vacate his conviction for second-degree robbery.

¶7REVERSED AND REMANDED.

¶8COBB, BASCHAB, and SHAW, JJ., concur. WISE, J., concurs specially, with opinion.

/899/so2d/1023 · .json · Public domain