Lynch v. State, 229 So. 3d 260

Marvin D. Lynch was convicted in 2008 of first‑degree robbery, second‑degree theft, and reckless endangerment; sentenced as a habitual offender (60, 16, and 1 year respectively). Direct appeal affirmed; cert. denied.
Lynch filed a second Rule 32 petition (2015) raising: (1) Brady suppression of victim statements; (2) lack of jurisdiction because arrest warrant lacked probable cause; and (3) double‑jeopardy—charging both robbery and theft for items taken in one transaction.
The circuit court initially summarily dismissed the petition, then set that order aside and again summarily dismissed after additional filings. Lynch appealed the summary dismissal.
Trial record shows a violent confrontation in which Lynch took a transmission, scrap metal, and a rifle from the victim; Lynch’s statements to police described taking and disposing of those items; the rifle was recovered from a creek.
The court treated the Brady and probable‑cause claims as procedurally precluded because they could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal, but reviewed the double‑jeopardy claim on the merits because it is jurisdictional.
The court concluded the robbery and theft convictions arose from a single transaction involving the same victim and property, vacated the second‑degree theft conviction and sentence, and remanded for entry of that relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady suppression of victim statements	Lynch: State suppressed Edmondson’s pretrial statements that would have supported Lynch’s theory and impeached trial testimony	State: Existence of Edmondson’s statements was disclosed at trial; claim could have been raised earlier and is precluded	Claim precluded under Rule 32.2(a)(3)/(a)(5) because it could have been raised at trial/appeal
Validity of arrest warrant / probable cause (jurisdictional challenge)	Lynch: No probable cause to support arrest warrant, so court lacked jurisdiction to convict/impose sentence	State: Challenge not raised earlier and is precluded	Not jurisdictional; precluded under Rule 32.2(a)(3)/(a)(5)
Double jeopardy — robbery and theft for same transaction	Lynch: Charging theft and robbery for items taken in the same transaction from one victim splits a single offense into multiple convictions	State: (implicitly) convictions stand; issue not precluded because double‑jeopardy claim is jurisdictional and reviewable	Conviction and sentence for second‑degree theft vacated; robbery conviction remains (theft was a lesser‑included offense of the robbery)

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution suppression of exculpatory evidence violates due process)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality standard for suppressed evidence: reasonable probability of a different result)
Ex parte Darby, 516 So.2d 786 (Ala. 1987) (single criminal act cannot be split into multiple punishments for the same transaction)
Connolly v. State, 539 So.2d 436 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988) (theft is a lesser included offense of robbery; cannot split one taking into separate theft charges)
McKinney v. State, 511 So.2d 220 (Ala. 1987) (multiple convictions allowed where a single act injures multiple victims; limited to multiple victims context)
Branum v. State, 623 So.2d 348 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992) (the taking of a car and other property in one transaction cannot support separate robbery and theft convictions)
Williams v. State, 104 So.3d 254 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012) (remedy for conviction on both greater and lesser‑included offenses is vacatur of the lesser‑included conviction)