Background

• Holliday appeals the circuit court's denial of his Rule 32 petition challenging his 2007 guilty-plea convictions for first-degree sexual abuse and second-degree sodomy, with 20-year concurrent sentences, noting no appeal was taken.
• His first Rule 32 petition was denied in 2008; he did not appeal. A second petition in 2009 sought an out-of-time appeal of the first petition, which was denied and led to remand for written factual findings.
• In June 2010 Holliday filed the present petition alleging unauthorized sentences due to improper enhancement under the Alabama Habitual Felony Offender Act, arguing one prior conviction was pardoned and another resulted from a nolo contendere plea.
• The State contends the signed guilty-plea agreement showed two prior felonies, making Holliday properly sentenced under the HFOA, with ranges based on Class C and Class B felonies and two priors.
• During a July 2010 hearing, the court and counsel debated which prior convictions counted, noting a pardoned burglary conviction and a prior Florida nolo contendere plea; the court ultimately concluded Holliday's sentence fell within the range, and Holliday was asked if he remained satisfied.
• The court denied the petition as meritless but this court later remanded sua sponte due to: (a) improper use of pardoned/nolo priors for enhancement, and (b) potential illegality of the sentence requiring resentence under the HFOA.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Ex parte Casey, 852 So. 2d 175 (Ala. 2002) (pardons and restoration of rights affect enhancement)
• Love v. State, 681 So. 2d 1108 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996) (illegality of first sentence requires proper resentencing)
• Murray v. State of Louisiana, 347 F.2d 825 (5th Cir. 1965) (pardoned convictions cannot be used to enhance)
• Bozza v. United States, 330 U.S. 160 (1947) (duty to sentence within legal limits when prior invalid)
• Ex parte Jenkins, 586 So.2d 176 (Ala. 1991) (nolo contendere pleas cannot support enhancement)
• McCray v. State, 738 So.2d 911 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998) (nolo pleas cannot be used to enhance under HFOA)
• Buckner v. State, 632 So.2d 974 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993) (prior convictions used for enhancement must be valid)
• Barr v. State, 4 So.3d 578 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008) (notify defendant if re-notification occurs during resentencing)
• Perry v. State, 861 So.2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002) (procedural guidelines for HFOA resentencing notification)
• Clements v. State, 709 So.2d 1321 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997) (re-notification and re-prosecution constraints in HFOA)
• Kennedy v. State, 929 So.2d 515 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005) (illegality and remand when HFOA issues arise)
• Mosley v. State, 986 So.2d 476 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007) (jurisdictional concerns in unauthorized sentences)