Lanier v. State
270 So. 3d 304
Ala. Crim. App.2018Background
- Samuel Lanier pleaded guilty in 1996 to first-degree robbery and was sentenced to a split 12-year sentence (2 years confinement + probation). 468 days jail credit was applied.
- Lanier later challenged that 1996 sentence via Rule 32; the circuit court found the original sentence illegal and resentenced him in August 2016 to 25 years.
- Lanier did not appeal the 1996 plea or the 2016 resentencing; he later filed a Rule 32 petition claiming the 2016 resentencing was unauthorized because (1) his original sentence had expired and (2) he lacked counsel at resentencing.
- The circuit court summarily dismissed the petition, finding Lanier had counsel at resentencing and that his original sentence had not expired (probation had not been revoked).
- On appeal the court remanded for supplementation of the record; after supplementation the court concluded Lanier had counsel but that his 1996 sentence had in fact expired in 2006 (the 10-year probationary maximum lapsed).
- The appellate court held that resentencing after a sentence has expired violates double-jeopardy principles and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to resentence Lanier in 2016; it reversed and ordered the 25-year resentencing set aside and the original sentence reinstated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lanier had counsel at the August 2016 resentencing | Lanier claimed he lacked counsel at resentencing | State/court record showed Lanier was represented by counsel at the hearing | Court held Lanier was represented; claim dismissed |
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence after the sentence had expired | Lanier argued the court lacked jurisdiction because his 1996 sentence expired in 2006, so resentencing in 2016 violated double jeopardy | State initially disputed expiration; circuit court found sentence had not expired because probation never revoked | Court held a trial court loses jurisdiction to correct (and may not increase) a sentence after the sentence has expired and appeal period has lapsed; resentencing violated double jeopardy; 25-year sentence set aside |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Hitt, 778 So.2d 159 (Ala. 2000) (trial court generally has 30 days to modify sentence)
- Woodward v. State, 3 So.3d 941 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008) (when probationary period ends)
- Ex parte Jarrett, 89 So.3d 730 (Ala. 2011) (illegal sentence may be challenged at any time)
- United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117 (U.S. 1980) (jeopardy attaches when defendant acquires an expectation of finality in sentence)
- People v. Williams, 14 N.Y.3d 198 (N.Y. 2010) (even illegal sentences acquire finality after completion; double jeopardy bars resentencing)
- Commonwealth v. Selavka, 469 Mass. 502 (Mass. 2014) (delayed correction of sentence can violate double jeopardy once defendant has legitimate expectation of finality)