Sistrunk v. State
109 So. 3d 205
Ala. Crim. App.2012Background
- Sistrunk pleaded guilty to unlawful distribution of a controlled substance under § 13A-12-211, Ala.Code 1975.
- Circuit court sentenced 25 years: 15 years for distribution plus two 5-year enhancements for proximity to a school and to a public-housing project.
- Defendant was fined $5,000, ordered to pay $2,500 to the Crime Victims Compensation Fund, and to pay court costs and attorney fees.
- Sistrunk moved to set aside his guilty plea on April 2, 2012, arguing the plea colloquy did not inform him of sentencing ranges; motion was denied the same day.
- On appeal, Sistrunk argued the circuit court failed to advise on minimum and maximum sentences, but the issue was not preserved below and was deemed waived.
- The court held the sentence to be a hybrid of the Habitual Felony Offender Act (HFOA) and voluntary sentencing standards, and remanded for resentencing under a single regime; it also noted fines/fees were not properly assessed and must be corrected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of sentencing-colloquy defect | Sistrunk asserts plea was not knowing due to missing advisement. | State contends the claim was not preserved for review. | Issue waived; not reviewable on appeal. |
| Validity of hybrid sentencing under HFOA and voluntary standards | Sistrunk contends the court erred by not choosing a single sentencing framework. | State concedes the hybrid sentence was not authorized. | Hybrid sentencing improper; remand for resentencing under one regime. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ginn v. State, 894 So.2d 793 (Ala.Crim.App.2004) (claims not preserved on appeal are waived)
- Danzey v. State, 703 So.2d 1019 (Ala.Crim.App.1997) (voluntariness issues must be presented to trial court first)
- Anderson v. State, 668 So.2d 159 (Ala.Crim.App.1995) (same rationale on voluntariness and preservation)
- Ex parte Frith, 526 So.2d 880 (Ala.1987) (grounds for objection must be specified to avoid waiver)
- State v. Crittenden, 17 So.3d 253 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) (discusses sentencing standards under the Alabama Act and remand procedure)