Hall v. State
2016 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 45
Ala. Crim. App.2016Background
- Kevin Brent Hall pleaded guilty in 1992 to unlawful possession of a controlled substance and received a 10-year sentence following a negotiated plea.
- Hall filed a Rule 32 postconviction petition in 2015 asserting his sentence was "illegal" because the trial court failed to impose the $1,000 Demand Reduction Assessment (§ 13A-12-281).
- Hall’s first Rule 32 petition was dismissed for failing to allege the date of the offense; on appeal this Court affirmed.
- In a second Rule 32 petition Hall added that the offense date was December 2, 1990 (after the statute’s effective date) and alleged the court never imposed or informed him of the mandatory fine.
- The State moved to dismiss arguing preclusion (Rule 32.2), succession, insufficient pleading, and that Hall had been paroled so no relief was possible. The circuit court summarily dismissed; Hall appealed.
- The Court affirmed, holding the Demand Reduction Assessment claim is non-jurisdictional (waivable) and thus subject to Rule 32 preclusion; it overruled earlier panel decisions to the extent they treated the fine as jurisdictional in Rule 32 proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to impose § 13A-12-281 assessment renders sentence jurisdictionally illegal | Hall: omission is jurisdictional/illegal and may be raised any time | State: claim is precluded/successive and insufficiently pleaded; State may have waived assessment in plea | Held: Non-jurisdictional (waivable); therefore subject to Rule 32 preclusion and dismissal |
| Whether Rule 32 limitation bars Hall’s successive petition | Hall: claim is jurisdictional so not subject to Rule 32 bars | State: successive and precluded under Rule 32.2 | Held: Claim is not jurisdictional; Rule 32.2 preclusion applies, dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Siercks/Hawk controllingly require remand to impose assessment in Rule 32 cases | Hall relies on Siercks/Hawk treating the fine as mandatory/jurisdictional | State argues those cases are inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent allowing waiver | Held: Siercks and Hawk overruled insofar as they treat § 13A-12-281 as jurisdictional in Rule 32 proceedings |
| Whether the State can waive mandatory fines in plea negotiations | Hall: plea omitted the assessment, so sentence illegal | State: State may have waived application as part of plea; court powerless to impose waived fines | Held: Mandatory fine can be waived by the State in plea bargaining; if waived, appellate or postconviction courts may not order imposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Siercks v. State, 154 So.3d 1085 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013) (held demand-reduction assessment mandatory and treated its omission as rendering sentence illegal)
- Hawk v. State, 171 So.3d 96 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014) (applied Siercks in postconviction context to remand for assessment)
- Ex parte Clemons, 55 So.3d 348 (Ala. 2007) (procedural bars written as mandatory are not jurisdictional when waivable by the State)
- Ex parte Seymour, 946 So.2d 536 (Ala. 2006) (defective indictment does not necessarily divest subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Pierson v. State, 677 So.2d 246 (Ala. 1995) (Alabama Supreme Court held Demand Reduction Assessment provisions mandatory)
- Durr v. State, 29 So.3d 922 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009) (noting State may waive application of certain mandatory fines/enhancements in plea deals)
- Ex parte Johnson, 669 So.2d 205 (Ala. 1995) (discussed State’s ability to forgo certain enhancements in plea agreements)