141 So. 3d 1119
Ala. Crim. App.2013Background
- Hooks was indicted in July 2011 for three counts of first-degree robbery related to a March 2011 Eastdale Mall incident where he and three others allegedly robbed three youths and claimed to be armed.
- Trial evidence showed approximately $100 taken; Hooks was 17 at the time; he was found guilty of one first-degree robbery and two second-degree robberies.
- The circuit court sentenced Hooks to three concurrent 20-year terms, split so he would serve up to three years in confinement followed by three years of probation, with costs and a $50 Victims’ Compensation assessment per conviction.
- During closing, Hooks’s counsel argued the alleged weapon was a joke and suggested the incident may have been milk money gone astray; the State’s rebuttal emphasized the victims’ fear and the seriousness of robbery.
- Hooks challenged the verdict on appeal, focusing on the prosecutorial rebuttal argument; the State contends the issue is waived under Rule 28(a)(10).
- This Court affirmed the convictions but remanded to reconsider the execution of Hooks’s split sentence, noting the improper method of splitting the 20-year sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the rebuttal closing argument unjustly influenced the jury | Hooks argues the rebuttal was improper and prejudicial. | State maintains argument was within discretion and invited by defense strategy; not reversible when context is considered. | No reversible error; rebuttal was permissible as reply and within trial court discretion. |
| Whether Hooks waived review under Rule 28(a)(10) | Cites authorities to support his argument and seeks review. | Argument fails Rule 28(a)(10); waived. | Waived; argument deemed waived for noncompliance with Rule 28(a)(10). |
| Whether the court erred in denying a mistrial | Requests mistrial due to improper closing argument. | Court correctly denied mistrial; arguments were not so prejudicial as to mandate relief. | Court acted within its discretion; no mistrial required. |
| Legality of the sentence split; remand procedure | Split sentence improperly allowed less than the required minimum. | Sentence within statutory range; remedy lies in proper splitting or reinstatement on remand. | Remand for proper sentencing procedure; court may split within §15-18-8 or reinstate full 20-year sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 494 So.2d 851 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) (rebuttal closing argument within permissible reply)
- Bonner v. State, 921 So.2d 469 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (mistrial is drastic and within discretion)
- DeBruce v. State, 651 So.2d 599 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) (replies in kind may be permissible when door opened by defense)
- Ex parte Rutledge, 482 So.2d 1262 (Ala.1984) (prosecutor may reply in kind to defense arguments)
- Hamm v. State, 913 So.2d 460 (Ala.Crim.App.2002) (Rule 28(a)(10) requires specific record support; general propositions are waived)
- Ex parte Borden, 60 So.3d 940 (Ala.2007) (waiver and lack of proper argument support)
- Moore v. State, 871 So.2d 106 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (20-year sentence may be split within statutory limits)
- Wood v. State, 602 So.2d 1195 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (remand procedures for sentencing adjustments)