Avis Dante Hinkle v. State of Alabama.
86 So. 3d 441
Ala. Crim. App.2011Background
- Hinkle was convicted on multiple drug offenses: trafficking in cocaine (§ 13A-12-231(2)); unlawful possession of marijuana (§ 13A-12-213); unlawful distribution of cocaine with school/housing-area proximity (§§ 13A-12-211, 13A-12-250, 13A-12-270); and tax-stamp offenses (§ 40-17A-4) in several case numbers, with sentences under the Habitual Felony Offender Act (HFOA) running concurrently (life for trafficking, 15 years for marijuana, 30 years for each distribution count, 15 years for each tax-stamp count) plus a $50,000 fine for trafficking; remands required payment of a Demand Reduction Assessment and Alabama Forensic Services Trust Fund fees; the trial court’s second remand returned $8,000 DRA and $400 Forensic Fund on remand.
- Antonio Smith, acting as an undercover informant, conducted four controlled cocaine buys from Hinkle (May 22, May 30, July 5, July 26, 2007), all recorded, with surveillance including a hidden video; each buy occurred within three miles of a school and housing project; substances tested as cocaine base.
- On August 3, 2007, agents acted on informant tip and located Hinkle in a vehicle with Cedric Massengale; Massengale was stopped for improper backing and was found possessing a controlled substance in plain view, with later seizures including Lortab pills; during the stop, a bulge under the passenger floor mat near Hinkle yielded substantial drugs; inventory search revealed scales and baggies, and lab analysis showed 83.63 grams of cocaine (powder/crack) and 23.06 grams of marijuana.
- The arrest followed a period of four controlled buys and pre-arrest information, with the same informant and largely the same officers involved, and the defendants thus faced related charges and evidence.
- The trial court consolidated six indictments for trial over defenses’ severance motion, relied on theories of constructive possession, and instructed the jury to consider each count separately; two distribution charges were later acquitted; the case proceeded to review of Gant-based suppression and post-trial challenges, including sub-issues on substantial-assistance motions and prior-conviction enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joinder/consolidation of trafficking and distribution counts was proper | Hinkle argues consolidation prejudiced trial; evidence would be inadmissible separately. | State contends offenses share character/conduct and could be joined; severance unnecessary. | Consolidation proper; no clear abuse of discretion; jury separated evidence; same-character test satisfied. |
| Whether the vehicle search violated Gant and suppression should apply | Search after arrest violated Gant because arrestees not within reaching distance and vehicle did not hold evidence of arrest. | Search justified by plain view and probable cause; good-faith reliance on precedent. | Gant applied retroactively in Jemison; search did not require suppression; good-faith exception applies. |
| Whether Hinkle was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on substantial-assistance claim | Drewry-like framework requires proper filing and court finding; no hearing held. | State did not file § 13A-12-232(b) motion; no adverse ruling to review. | No error; State did not move; no hearing required. |
| Whether prior convictions could be used to enhance under HFOA | Challenge to validity of prior tax-stamp convictions affects enhancement. | Cannot challenge prior convictions at sentencing; three prior felonies remain; enhancement proper. | Enhancement proper; postconviction challenges not properly raised; relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Culver v. State, 22 So. 3d 499 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008) (standard for abuse of discretion in consolidation/severance)
- Ex parte Hinton, 548 So. 2d 562 (Ala. 1989) (compelling prejudice required to reverse severance decisions)
- Ex parte Scott, 728 So. 2d 172 (Ala. 1998) (joinder under Rule 13.3(a) considerations; same or similar character)
- Gagliardi v. State, 695 So. 2d 206 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996) (severance discretionary; harmless error when jury can separate evidence)
- Jenkins v. State, 472 So. 2d 1128 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985) (early articulation of similarity criteria for consolidation)
- State v. Gargus, 855 So. 2d 587 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) (searches incident to arrest and container contents; Belton/related rule)
- Gargus and Jemison (cited within opinion), State v. Jemison, So. 3d (Ala. Crim. App. 2010) (Gant retroactivity application in Alabama; vehicle-search rule)