Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

927 So. 2d 883

Coleman v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Decided August 26, 2005

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · decided 2005-08-26

Decided 2005-08-26

BASCHAB, Judge,

¶1dissenting.

¶2Normally, it is not appropriate to look to another proceeding to determine whether a defendant was sentenced as a habitual offender. However, the circuit court specifically found that the appellant entered his guilty pleas in case number CC-84-2825 and case number CC-84-2826 “as *889part and parcel of the same agreement.” Therefore, it was appropriate for the circuit court to look to the proceeding in case number CC-84-2826 to determine that the appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender. In so doing, the circuit court determined that the appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender, and it specifically-listed his prior convictions. Because the circuit court has done everything'that can be done, under the circumstances of this case, to determine whether the appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender, a remand would be futile. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

/927/so2d/883 · .json · Public domain