Ex Parte Jarrett, 1090919 (Ala. 9-30-2011), 89 So. 3d 730

Jarrett petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review a CMA unpublished memorandum affirming a circuit court denial of his Rule 32 petition challenging a 2006 CNA conviction sentence.
Jarrett pleaded guilty to one CNA violation in 2006 and received a 15-year sentence, suspended for three years with probation thereafter; probation was later revoked in 2007.
The CMA summarize Jarrett's Rule 32 claim: the 15-year sentence was illegal because the CNA offense was a misdemeanor before Oct. 1, 2005, not a Class C felony.
The circuit court summarily dismissed Jarrett’s petition as precluded and lacking merit under Rule 32.2(a)(3) and (5).
The CMA affirmed the circuit court’s denial, holding the claim precluded and nonjurisdictional, and Jarrett sought certiorari in this Court.
The Court holds that the sentence may be illegal and the proper analysis requires determining the offense date relied upon for sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jarrett’s 15-year sentence is illegal due to the CNA amendment.	Jarrett argues the offense was a misdemeanor when committed, so the 15-year sentence was unauthorized.	State contends the petition was procedurally barred and the merits were precluded, so issues are preserved for postconviction relief.	Reversed and remanded to determine offense date and possible resentencing.
Whether the challenge to the sentence is jurisdictional and not precluded.	Jarrett asserts a jurisdictional defect because the offense date affects legality of sentence.	State maintains Rule 32 preclusion governs the claim and jurisdictional aspects are not implicated.	The illegality of sentence is jurisdictional and warrants review.
Whether an evidentiary hearing is required to fix the date of the CNA violation.	Determining the exact date is necessary to assess legality and potential resentencing.	No hearing if the date is undisputed or conclusively determined by record.	Remand to circuit court for an evidentiary hearing on the date of the CNA violation.

Ex parte Batey, 958 So. 2d 339 (Ala. 2006) (illegal-sentence challenges are jurisdictional)
Ginn v. State, 894 So. 2d 793 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004) (jurisdictional challenge distinguished from plea factual basis)
Whitman v. State, 903 So. 2d 152 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004) (factual-basis challenges are nonjurisdictional)
Ex parte Graham, 702 So. 2d 1215 (Ala. 1997) (standard for de novo review on pure questions of law)
State v. American Tobacco Co., 772 So. 2d 417 (Ala. 2000) (de novo review when facts are not disputed)