REL:

09/28/2012

Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r .

ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

CR-11-0468

Anthony M i t c h e l l v.

Money

S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Henry C i r c u i t Court (CC 09-52) BURKE, J u d g e . Anthony Mitchell Money was convicted of criminally

n e g l i g e n t h o m i c i d e , a v i o l a t i o n o f 13A-6-4, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , and was s e n t e n c e d t o one y e a r of hard l a b o r i n t h e Henry a $100

County j a i l .

He was a l s o o r d e r e d t o p a y a $ 7 5 0 f i n e ,

CR-11-0468 assessment c o s t s , and to the crime victims compensation follows. to the case 17, an fund, court

restitution.

This appeal

A d e t a i l e d r e c i t a t i o n of the f a c t s i s unnecessary d i s p o s i t i o n of t h i s a p p e a l .
1

However, we

note t h a t t h i s

a r o s e o u t o f an i n c i d e n t t h a t o c c u r r e d on o r a b o u t O c t o b e r 2 0 0 6 , when Money and h i s g i r l f r i e n d , argument w h i l e riding Mary C u r r y , got i n t o The

i n Money's v e h i c l e .

altercation he

became p h y s i c a l and,

a t some p o i n t , Money p u l l e d o v e r , and A few moments l a t e r , s t r u c k and

and C u r r y g o t o u t o f t h e v e h i c l e . who by was an

Curry, killed to the

l y i n g i n t h e m i d d l e o f t h e r o a d , was oncoming v e h i c l e . leading up to T h e r e were no the point where

eyewitnesses Curry was

events

killed. lying in

A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e r e was the middle of the road.

a d i s p u t e as t o why

C u r r y was

The S t a t e c l a i m e d t h a t Money r e n d e r e d and t h e n f a i l e d t o remove h e r from

Curry dazed or unconscious

the p a t h of oncoming t r a f f i c . down i n the road of her own

Money c l a i m e d t h a t C u r r y l a y volition and refused to move

d e s p i t e h i s attempts

t o remove h e r .

Money r a i s e s f i v e a r g u m e n t s on a p p e a l . However, b e c a u s e we a r e r e v e r s i n g t h e c o n v i c t i o n b a s e d on Money's argument r e l a t i n g t o t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s , we need not address the r e m a i n i n g arguments.

CR-11-0468 Money was felony. convicted See of i n d i c t e d f o r r e c k l e s s manslaughter, a Class 13A-6-3, the A l a . Code 1975. offense However, of he B

was

lesser-included

criminally Money

n e g l i g e n t h o m i c i d e , a C l a s s A misdemeanor. points out t h a t the i n c i d e n t g i v i n g r i s e on o r a b o u t O c t o b e r June 8, 2009.

On a p p e a l ,

to h i s prosecution he was not that i s 12

occurred

17, 2006, and t h a t

indicted until the statute

He a l s o c o r r e c t l y s t a t e s offense

of l i m i t a t i o n s 15-3-2,

f o r a misdemeanor

months. provided,

See

A l a . Code

1975("Unless

otherwise

the p r o s e c u t i o n o f a l l misdemeanors b e f o r e a c i r c u i t

o r d i s t r i c t c o u r t must be commenced w i t h i n 12 months a f t e r t h e commission of the o f f e n s e . " ) court Therefore, he s a y s , the trial

d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n

t o t r y and c o n v i c t

him f o r d i d not

c r i m i n a l l y n e g l i g e n t homicide because the p r o s e c u t i o n

commence w i t h i n t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s . Money f i r s t r a i s e d t h i s i s s u e i n h i s p o s t t r i a l Motion to Dismiss." trial looked court at found to (C. 7 0 - 7 2 . ) that "Instanter

I n denying that motion, the offense that i s of

" i t i s the charged i f the

determine

applicable

statute

l i m i t a t i o n s had r u n , not the l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e

that the 558

D e f e n d a n t was c o n v i c t e d o f " (C. 7 5 ) , c i t i n g Rock v. S t a t e ,

CR-11-0468 So. 2d 967 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) . Accordingly, the t r i a l

c o u r t h e l d t h a t b e c a u s e Money was i n d i c t e d f o r a f e l o n y , f o r w h i c h t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s i s t h r e e y e a r s , s e e 15-3-1, Ala. Code 1975, t h e p r o s e c u t i o n On a p p e a l , was commenced within the

a p p l i c a b l e time p e r i o d . and argued that

t h e S t a t e a l s o c i t e d Rock offense that i s used i n

i t i s the charged

order

t o determine the a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s . In h i s b r i e f on a p p e a l , Money c i t e s 1986), Hall v. S t a t e , this 497

So.

2d

1145

( A l a . Crim.

App.

i n which

Court was

addressed

a similar

situation.

In H a l l ,

the appellant

i n d i c t e d f o r f i r s t - d e g r e e s e x u a l abuse b u t was c o n v i c t e d o f a lesser-included offense This Court held: t h a t , a t t h e t i m e , was a m i s d e m e a n o r .

"A p e r s o n c a n n o t be c o n v i c t e d o f a l e s s e r o f f e n s e , upon p r o s e c u t i o n f o r a g r e a t e r offense, w h i c h i n c l u d e s t h e l e s s e r o f f e n s e , commenced a f t e r t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s has r u n on t h e l e s s e r offense. See g e n e r a l l y 47 A.L.R. 2d 887. "'The r u l e p r o v i d i n g t h a t e v e r y l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e one c h a r g e d i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t a p p l i e s a n d has reference only t o every actionable offense and n o t t h e o f f e n s e s w h i c h upon t h e f a c e o f the p r o c e e d i n g s a r e b a r r e d by t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s , the operation of which rendered the court without j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t r y and d e t e r m i n e t h e s o - c a l l e d l e s s e r offenses.'" 4

CR-11-0468 Hall, App. the him 497 376, trial for So. 160 2d, So. at 727 1148, quoting S p e a r s v. State, 26 Ala.

(1935).

Therefore,

according

t o Money, convict negligent offense

c o u r t d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n the misdemeanor offense of

t o t r y and

criminally

h o m i c i d e , e v e n t h o u g h he was of r e c k l e s s manslaughter. Thus, Spears. indicted We i t appears that

i n d i c t e d f o r the

felony

Rock

conflicts

with

Hall

and

must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a p e r s o n who be convicted for of the

i s properly

f o r a f e l o n y may if the

a lesser-included felony was not

misdemeanor

prosecution

commenced u n t i l a f t e r t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s a p p l i c a b l e t o the and m i s d e m e a n o r has the expired. of the Cases i n v o l v i n g i s s u e s law to See undisputed Ex parte of law are 970

application this 287

facts

r e v i e w e d by So. 2d 285,

C o u r t de

novo.

Hamilton,

( A l a . 2006).

A c l o s e r e a d i n g o f Rock v. S t a t e r e v e a l s t h a t t h e p o r t i o n of t h a t o p i n i o n unnecessary a p p e l l a n t was convicted sexual of to the the trial court of relied the on was case. dicta In and was the was

holding

Rock,

i n d i c t e d for f i r s t - d e g r e e sexual the a lesser-included Class A offense of

abuse b u t

second-degree he was not

abuse,

misdemeanor.

However,

CR-11-0468 i n d i c t e d w i t h i n 12 months o f t h e c h a r g e d c o n d u c t . the appellant argued that the statute charge. that of In On appeal, had the

limitations affirming

expired

for his this we had was no

misdemeanor Court look stated at to

conviction, offense that

" [ i ] t i s the i f the

charged of that 970. that

determine

statute

limitations appellant However,

run, not the l e s s e r convicted of." were Rock cited

included 558 in So.

offense 2d, at of

prior

cases

support

p r o p o s i t i o n , and t h e C o u r t went on t o n o t e t h a t t h e s t a t u t e o f limitations charge Section is had not e x p i r e d f o r the appellant's less than 16 misdemeanor o f age. "[t]here must be

because

t h e v i c t i m was

years that

15-3-5(a)(4),

A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s

no l i m i t a t i o n

of time w i t h i n which [a]ny sex o f f e n s e

a prosecution

commenced f o r ...

i n v o l v i n g a v i c t i m under force or the

16 y e a r s o f age, r e g a r d l e s s serious language charged physical i n Rock offense was was injury or

of whether i t i n v o l v e s death...." a court

Accordingly, i s to look

s t a t i n g that to determine to

to the of case

the the

applicable decision

statute i n the

limitations because

unnecessary no statute

there

of l i m i t a t i o n s

on t h e

offense

underlying

t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s misdemeanor c h a r g e .

CR-11-0468 However, present for case. the As facts noted, of the Hall are more similar to the

appellant

i n H a l l was

indicted

f i r s t - d e g r e e s e x u a l abuse b u t was offense of that attempted

c o n v i c t e d of the l e s s e r sexual abuse.

included This

first-degree

Court h e l d

" t h e 12 month s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s had r u n on t h e offense o f a t t e m p t e d s e x u a l abuse i n t h e first degree because the commission of the acts c o n s t i t u t i n g t h i s o f f e n s e o c c u r r e d d u r i n g t h e summer of 1983[ ]. A p e r s o n c a n n o t be c o n v i c t e d o f a l e s s e r o f f e n s e , upon p r o s e c u t i o n f o r a g r e a t e r offense, w h i c h i n c l u d e s t h e l e s s e r o f f e n s e , commenced a f t e r t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s has r u n on t h e l e s s e r offense."
3

Id.

at The

1148. H a l l d e c i s i o n a l s o c i t e d S p e a r s v. S t a t e , 160 In Spears, to the a p p e l l a n t was a felony, indicted for but was Id. So. 727

(1935). with

"assault of In not

intent and

murder," a

convicted at 728.

"assault

battery,

misdemeanor." to H a l l , the

s i m i l a r i t y to t h i s

c a s e and

a p p e l l a n t was

A l t h o u g h t h e v i c t i m i n H a l l was l e s s t h a n 16 y e a r s o f age, t h e c h a r g e d c o n d u c t i n t h a t c a s e o c c u r r e d b e f o r e J a n u a r y 7, 1985, t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f 1 5 - 3 - 5 ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975, which e l i m i n a t e d the s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s f o r such o f f e n s e s . A c c o r d i n g l y , a t t h e t i m e t h e a p p e l l a n t i n H a l l was c o n v i c t e d , the a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s f o r attempted f i r s t d e g r e e s e x u a l abuse o f a m i n o r was 12 months.
2 3

T h e a p p e l l a n t was

not

indicted until April 7

1985.

CR-11-0468 indicted occurred. conviction held: "By t h e v e r d i c t o f t h e j u r y , s u p r a , t h e a c c u s e d a c q u i t t e d of the offense of a s s a u l t with i n t e n t was t o m u r d e r ; a n d , as i t a f f i r m a t i v e l y a p p e a r s , w i t h o u t d i s p u t e , t h a t t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s h a d r u n as to the o t h e r o f f e n s e s o r d i n a r i l y i n c l u d e d under t h e charge i n the i n d i c t m e n t , the charge o f a s s a u l t w i t h i n t e n t t o m u r d e r was t h e o n l y a c t i o n a b l e o f f e n s e i n this indictment. Under t h i s s t a t u s t h e c o u r t was wrong i n c h a r g i n g t h e j u r y t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h i s i n d i c t m e n t i n c l u d e d a l s o t h e charges o f a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y a n d a s s a u l t , a n d t h a t t h e j u r y w o u l d be warranted i n f i n d i n g him g u i l t y o f a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y , o r an a s s a u l t . The r u l e p r o v i d i n g t h a t e v e r y l e s s e r o f f e n s e i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e one c h a r g e d i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t a p p l i e s and has r e f e r e n c e o n l y t o e v e r y a c t i o n a b l e o f f e n s e and n o t t h e o f f e n s e s which upon t h e f a c e o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s a r e b a r r e d b y t h e statute of l i m i t a t i o n s , the operation of which r e n d e r e d t h e c o u r t w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t r y and determine the s o - c a l l e d l e s s e r offenses. In other w o r d s , t h e m i s d e m e a n o r o f w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t was c o n v i c t e d was n o t e m b r a c e d i n t h e m a j o r c h a r g e o f a s s a u l t w i t h i n t e n t t o murder. N o r c o u l d i t have b e e n as t h e r u n n i n g o f t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s had r e n d e r e d t h e c h a r g e u n a c t i o n a b l e . The t i m e when an o f f e n s e was c o m m i t t e d n e e d n o t be a l l e g e d i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t , b u t i t i s e s s e n t i a l i t must be p r o v e d on t h e t r i a l t h a t i t was c o m m i t t e d w i t h i n t h e p e r i o d , w h i c h i s p r e s c r i b e d as a b a r a g a i n s t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n for i t . I f t h i s i s n o t done, t h e p r o s e c u t i o n f a i l s . Why? B e c a u s e , when t h e p e r i o d o f l i m i t a t i o n e l a p s e d , t h e a c t c e a s e d t o be a p u n i s h a b l e o f f e n s e . No c o u r t was t h e n a u t h o r i z e d t o p r o n o u n c e s e n t e n c e a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n who c o m m i t t e d i t . " 8 until The almost Court two y e a r s after the relevant conduct the and

of Appeals

o f Alabama

reversed offense

f o r t h e l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d misdemeanor

CR-11-0468 S p e a r s , 160 So. a t 728. Thus, a t r i a l c o u r t does n o t have t h e s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y to adjudicate a misdemeanor o f f e n s e unless the defendant i s

i n d i c t e d , b o u n d o v e r , o r a w a r r a n t f o r h i s o r h e r a r r e s t has b e e n i s s u e d w i t h i n 12 months o f t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e o f f e n s e . H a l l and S p e a r s embrace t h i s p r i n c i p l e . extent that the language i n Rock Accordingly, to the and

i s contrary disavowed. 1975,

to Hall

S p e a r s on t h i s Section "circuit all

i s s u e , i t i s hereby

12-11-30(2),

A l a . Code

provides

that

c o u r t s h a l l have e x c l u s i v e o r i g i n a l prosecutions and of

j u r i s d i c t i o n of or ordinance

felony

misdemeanor

v i o l a t i o n s which are l e s s e r i n c l u d e d offenses w i t h i n a f e l o n y charge or which arise from t h e same i n c i d e n t as a felony that or

charge." "the

However,

15-3-2, A l a . Code of a l l misdemeanors

1975, p r o v i d e s before a circuit

prosecution

district

c o u r t must be commenced w i t h i n 12 months

a f t e r the

commission of the o f f e n s e . " 1975, p r o v i d e s the meaning of of a

F u r t h e r m o r e , 15-3-7, A l a . Code

t h a t " [ a ] p r o s e c u t i o n may be commenced w i t h i n [ 15-3-2] or by by finding binding an over indictment, the the

issuing

warrant

offender."

I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e c o n d u c t g i v i n g r i s e t o Money's

CR-11-0468 prosecution occurred on o r a b o u t O c t o b e r June 8, 2009. 17, 2006, a n d t h a t A d d i t i o n a l l y , we June

Money was n o t i n d i c t e d u n t i l

n o t e t h a t a w a r r a n t f o r h i s a r r e s t was n o t i s s u e d u n t i l 9, 2009. Therefore, June the prosecution

o f Money's c a s e d i d n o t two y e a r s facts, a f t e r the as w e l l as

commence u n t i l

8, 2009, more t h a n

charged conduct occurred. the

B a s e d on t h o s e

c a s e s a n d s t a t u t e s d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e n e g l i g e n t h o m i c i d e was n o t e m b r a c e d i n Accordingly, the

charge of c r i m i n a l l y

the g r e a t e r charge of r e c k l e s s manslaughter. trial

c o u r t d i d n o t have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o c o n v i c t Money f o r negligent homicide. To h o l d otherwise would be

criminally

c o n t r a r y t o t h e A l a b a m a Code. In Money i t s order, objected the t r i a l court charge also on noted that, while

to the j u r y

criminally

negligent

h o m i c i d e , he d i d n o t s t a t e s p e c i f i c g r o u n d s f o r h i s o b j e c t i o n . (C. 74.) Ordinarily, "'[r]eview and i s s u e s p r o p e r l y on a p p e a l i s restricted to

questions

and t i m e l y r a i s e d a t t r i a l . ' "

Newsome v. S t a t e , 570 So. 2d 703, 717 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1989) . However, this Court has h e l d that claims such as t h e one

r a i s e d i n the present

c a s e c a n be r a i s e d on

appeal.

10

CR-11-0468 " A l t h o u g h A l a b a m a l a w i s n o t e n t i r e l y c l e a r on t h e question whether a court presiding over a p r o s e c u t i o n b a r r e d by t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s i s w i t h o u t ' j u r i s d i c t i o n , ' a s y n t h e s i s of the Alabama cases i n d i c a t e s t h a t a s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s d e f e c t must be c o n s i d e r e d ' j u r i s d i c t i o n a l , ' i n t h e s e n s e t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t i s not a u t h o r i z e d t o pronounce the accused g u i l t y of the t i m e - b a r r e d offense. Notwithstanding the f a c t t h a t i n c e r t a i n s p e c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s where t h e b a r o f t h e s t a t u t e may be e x p r e s s l y w a i v e d when i t does n o t o p e r a t e i n t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s f a v o r , see S p a z i a n o v. F l o r i d a , 468 U.S. 447, 104 [Link]. 3154, 82 [Link].2d 340 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ; H a l l v. S t a t e , 497 So. 2d 1145 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 6 ) , u n d e r o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s the bar of the s t a t u t e i s not w a i v e d by a mere f a i l u r e t o a s s e r t i t , and the s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s may be p r o p e r l y a s s e r t e d on appeal or i n a p e t i t i o n f o r p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f . Cox v. State, 585 So. 2d 182, 193 this (Ala. issue Crim. is App.

1991)(emphasis before Cox in this

added).

Therefore, review.

properly

t h i s Court f o r

a l s o d i s t i n g u i s h e d i s s u e s s u c h as case, where t h e trial court

the

one

presented

l a c k e d the offense, without

a u t h o r i t y to instances

c o n v i c t a defendant of a t i m e - b a r r e d in which a trial court would be

from

subject-matter

jurisdiction.

I n Cox,

t h i s Court held:

" I n s t e a d o f a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t had no subject-matter jurisdiction over the conspiracy p r o s e c u t i o n , i t i s more a c c u r a t e t o s t a t e t h a t , once t h e c o u r t was shown t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n was b a r r e d by t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s , t h e c o u r t had no ' j u r i s d i c t i o n to t r y the q u e s t i o n of the g u i l t or innocence of the accused.'" S e r f a s s v. United 11

CR-11-0468 S t a t e s , 420 U.S. [377] a t 391, 95 [Link]. ( q u o t i n g K e p n e r v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 195 U.S. 24 [Link]. 797, 806, 49 [Link]. 114 (1904)). Cox v. S t a t e , 585 So. 2d 182, 193-94 at 1064, 100, 133, 1991). 2d 536,

( A l a . C r i m . App. So.

T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Ex p a r t e Seymour, 946 538 in

( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) , i n w h i c h t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t deciding whether a claim "properly we challenges ask the trial the

court's subject-matter trial try c o u r t had the

jurisdiction,

only whether

t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and with hold which" that, the

s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y to was charged. court Money had was of

offense we

defendant the

Accordingly, subject-matter

although over the

trial

jurisdiction

offenses

c h a r g e d w i t h , i t d i d n o t have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o c o n v i c t him the t i m e - b a r r e d Therefore, reversed. misdemeanor. Money's conviction note is that void the and jury's must

be

A d d i t i o n a l l y , we

verdict as an

c o n v i c t i n g Money o f t h e l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e o p e r a t e s implicit acquittal 980 So. of 2d the 966, greater 972 the offense. See Ex

parte

Gillentine,

( A l a . 2007). judgment of the trial court

B a s e d on is reversed,

the and

foregoing,

a judgment i s r e n d e r e d JUDGMENT RENDERED.

i n f a v o r o f Money.

REVERSED AND

12

CR-11-0468 Welch, Kellum, concurs i n the and Joiner, J J . , concur. Windom, P.J.,

result.

13