Mosley v. State, 187 So. 3d 1194

Mosley pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree sodomy pursuant to a plea agreement and was sentenced under the voluntary Alabama Sentencing Guidelines to concurrent 20-year terms, suspended with 5 years’ supervised probation.
Mosley’s probation was revoked in June 2008; he unsuccessfully moved to withdraw his guilty plea and lost on direct appeal (unpublished memoranda).
In 2012 Mosley sought correction of sentence claiming § 15-22-50 limited suspendable sentences to 15 years; the trial court denied relief and this Court denied a mandamus petition in 2013, noting the sentences were authorized and Mosley could pursue postconviction relief.
Mosley filed a Rule 32 petition in December 2013 arguing his 20-year suspended sentences were illegal because § 15-22-50 prohibits suspending sentences over 15 years and suspension authority derives solely from that statute.
The State moved to dismiss as time-barred and previously litigated; the trial court summarily dismissed the petition and Mosley appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mosley’s suspended 20‑year sentences were illegal because § 15‑22‑50 prohibits suspension of sentences >15 years	Mosley: circuit courts may only suspend under § 15‑22‑50, which bars suspending sentences over 15 years, so 20‑year suspended terms are unauthorized	State: sentencing under the voluntary Guidelines authorized the non‑prison disposition and 20‑year terms are authorized by law; claim was previously raised on appeal and is precluded	Court: claim precluded under Rule 32.2(a)(4) because previously addressed on appeal; alternatively, claim lacks merit because the Guidelines (adopted by the Legislature) authorize suspension of non‑prison recommendations, including sentence lengths authorized by law, and therefore may permit suspension despite § 15‑22‑50
Whether the trial court erred by summarily dismissing under Rule 32 without specific citation to preclusion ground	Mosley: summary dismissal improper/time‑barred argument (Rule 32.2(c))	State: argued prior adjudication and lack of merit; trial court relied on appellate decision affirming sentence	Court: dismissal may be affirmed because Mosley received adequate notice his claim was previously addressed; no due‑process impediment to applying preclusion here

Ex parte McCormick, 932 So.2d 124 (Ala. 2005) (held that a more recent statutory grant of suspension authority in a specific sentencing scheme can permit suspension of terms otherwise restricted by § 15‑22‑50)
State v. Green, 436 So.2d 803 (Ala. 1983) (explains suspension authority derives from legislative sanction and cites § 15‑22‑50)
Little v. State, 129 So.3d 312 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012) (held § 15‑22‑50 precluded suspending a 20‑year HFOA sentence)
Scott v. State, 148 So.3d 458 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013) (reiterated § 15‑22‑50 prohibition on suspending sentences over 15 years in HFOA context)
Ex parte Clemons, 55 So.3d 348 (Ala. 2007) (discusses due‑process notice requirements before applying preclusion grounds sua sponte)