Background

• Thompson was convicted of two counts of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance within a three-mile radius of a school and a housing project, and one count of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, and sentenced by the circuit court to concurrent life terms as an habitual offender with fines and penalties as required by law.
• Appellate counsel filed an Anders-type brief; Thompson submitted pro se issues challenging trial and sentencing conduct.
• Preservation issue: Thompson's ineffective-assistance claim was not first raised in the circuit court and failed the Jefferson/Montgomery preservation exceptions.
• Thompson asserted involuntary absence from trial; the record showed he was present at initial proceedings and failed to appear only when already informed trial would resume the next morning.
• At sentencing, Thompson argued lack of allocution under Rule 26.9(b), failure to state credit for time incarcerated, and failure to explain terms; the court proceeded without an allocution, prompting remand for proper allocution.
• The court affirmed Thompson’s convictions but reversed the sentencing and remanded for resentencing with proper allocution and compliance with Rule 26.9(b).

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Montgomery v. State, 781 So. 2d 1007 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000) (Preservation of ineffective-assistance claims requires trial-court presentation)
• Ex parte Ingram, 675 So.2d 863 (Ala. 1996) (preservation rules for ineffective assistance)
• Ex parte Jefferson, 749 So.2d 406 (Ala. 1999) (exception for claims of ineffective assistance in rare cases)
• Banks v. State, 51 So.3d 386 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010) (allocution required before sentencing; remand if missing)
• Shaw v. State, 949 So.2d 184 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) (direct-appeal remand for lack of allocution)
• Gulledge v. State, 526 So.2d 654 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988) (allocution rights and due-process considerations)