123 So. 3d 535
Ala. Crim. App.2012Background
- Enfinger pleaded guilty to sexual abuse of a child under 12 as an habitual felony offender and was sentenced to 20 years, with the sentence split to time served plus 3 years of probation.
- The circuit court issued the split-sentence under the Split-Sentence Act, though the offense is a child-sex offense and the statute restricts such splits.
- Enfinger, who was homeless, was released with three days to register, failed to register, and a warrant issued; he was later arrested and probation was revoked.
- On appeal, counsel filed a no-merit brief under Anders; the court identified a potentially meritorious issue concerning the legality of the sentence under the Split-Sentence Act and remanded for briefing.
- The State concedes the sentence is not authorized by law and asks remand for resentence; the majority remands to remove the illegal split and to resentence, while a dissent argues the parole/revocation remedy moots the issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Split-Sentence Act authorized splitting the sentence. | State: split allowed only for non-child offenses; here child-sex offense barred. | Enfinger: the circuit court exceeded authority by applying the Split-Sentence Act. | No authority to split; illegal execution of sentence. |
| Whether the probation revocation was void because the court had no authority to impose or revoke probation. | State: revocation was proper as part of correction of the illegality. | Enfinger: revocation rests on an illegal split; void ab initio. | Probation revocation void; remand to remove split and resentence. |
| Appropriateness of remand rather than direct withdrawal of guilty plea or other relief. | Remand needed to correct illegality while preserving valid 20-year term. | Remand could affect voluntariness of plea; counsel needed. | Remand to remove split; resentence consistent with legality; potential Rule 14.4(e) considerations preserved. |
| Whether the illegality of the sentence moot the voluntariness issue and obviates further relief. | Mootness arguable only if plea voluntariness remains unaddressed. | Voluntariness issue not properly before Court; mootness should bar relief. | Mootness is contested; majority treats issue as moot by correction of execution; dissent disagrees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. State, 879 So.2d 1218 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (removal of illegal split sentence as remedy)
- Morris v. State, 876 So.2d 1176 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (removal of illegal split sentence as remedy)
- Austin v. State, 864 So.2d 1115 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (remand to reconsider execution of sentence; impact on voluntariness of plea)
- Moore v. State, 871 So.2d 106 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (remand for reconsideration of execution when split was improper)
- Hunt v. State, 659 So.2d 998 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (jurisdictional nature of unauthorized sentences)
- Austin v. State, 864 So.2d 1115 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (unauthorized split sentence; remedies and mootness guidance)