Knight v. State
92 So. 3d 717
Ala.2011Background
- Knight was convicted in 1993 of first-degree theft and third-degree burglary and sentenced under the pre-amendment HFOA to life for theft and 15 years for burglary, to be served concurrently.
- In 2000 the HFOA was amended and in 2001 Act 2001-977 made the 2000 amendments retroactive for a limited class of nonviolent offenders; § 13A-5-9.1 governs retroactive consideration for early parole.
- Section 13A-5-9.1 as amended in 2007 allows consideration by the sentencing judge or, if the sentencing judge is no longer in office, by any circuit judge appointed by the presiding judge.
- Knight filed a June 2009 motion for sentence reconsideration under § 13A-5-9.1 and Kirby, alleging nonviolent status and lengthy tenure with good conduct.
- Knight’s motion was assigned to Judge Truman Hobbs, Jr., under a July 25, 2007 standing administrative order directing assignment to the sentencing judge or a circuit judge if the sentencing judge is gone, but it did not clearly show Hobbs held the sentencing-seat or that he was specially appointed by the presiding judge.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial; certiorari was granted to determine whether Hobbs had authority to decide Knight’s motion under § 13A-5-9.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority of Judge Hobbs to hear Knight’s motion | Knight: Hobbs lacked jurisdiction since not the sentencing or presiding judge. | State: administrative order properly designated a valid appointment. | Hobbs lacked authority; order invalid; remand |
| Validity of the July 25, 2007 administrative order as a presiding-judge appointment | Order improperly leaves selection to circuit clerk under 'or to a Circuit Judge'. | Order delegated to a circuit judge as authorized by § 13A-5-9.1. | Order invalid; assignment not a proper presiding-judge appointment |
| Interpretation of § 13A-5-9.1 after 2007 amendment | Kirby framework requires presiding judge to appoint; broad delegation undermines intent. | Amendment broadens appointment to any circuit judge by presiding judge. | Statutory interpretation favors presiding-judge appointment; appointed judge must be valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirby v. State, 899 So.2d 968 (Ala.2004) (upheld constitutionality and assignment authority under § 13A-5-9.1)
- Ex parte Sandifer, 925 So.2d 290 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (presiding judge did not authorize an acting presiding judge under original § 13A-5-9.1)
- Ex parte Jenkins, 992 So.2d 1248 (Ala.2007) (denial by a non-sentencing/non-presiding judge void)
- Owens v. State, 39 So.3d 1183 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) (standing order can designate specific judge to hear motions; not merely ministerial)