Taylor v. State, 212 So. 3d 970

In 2004 Cedric Taylor pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment, with execution of that sentence purportedly suspended and Taylor placed on 10 years’ probation.
In 2012 Taylor was arrested and convicted in municipal court for possession of drug paraphernalia; his probation officer filed a delinquency report alleging new-offense conviction, failure to report, and unpaid fees.
The Madison Circuit Court held a revocation hearing, accepted some admissions by Taylor, and revoked his probation.
On appeal Taylor argued the circuit court failed to conduct an adequate Rule 27.6(c) colloquy before accepting admissions to violations; he also challenged the revocation order’s sufficiency.
The Court of Criminal Appeals instead identified—sua sponte—that the original sentence was illegal because Alabama law prohibits suspending sentences longer than 15 years; therefore the court lacked authority to place Taylor on probation or later revoke it.
The court reversed the probation revocation and the original sentencing order, and remanded for resentencing (not to exceed the original 18-year term) and for the trial court to address any plea-voluntariness issues arising from resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court conducted an adequate Rule 27.6(c) colloquy before accepting admissions to probation violations	Taylor: colloquy was inadequate, so revocation order is insufficient	State: (not reached in opinion) presumably that colloquy was adequate	Court did not decide on this point because it found the underlying sentence illegal and thus the revocation ineffective
Whether the circuit court had authority to suspend an 18-year penitentiary sentence and place Taylor on probation	Taylor did not raise this below, but the court may consider jurisdictional defects at any time	State: (not decided) but the trial court had imposed probation in original judgment	Court: under § 15-22-50 a sentence of more than 15 years cannot be suspended; the suspension/probation was unauthorized and void; revocation therefore had no effect; remand for resentencing (but resentencing cannot exceed original 18-year term)

Hunt v. State, 659 So.2d 998 (noting unauthorized-sentence issues are jurisdictional)
Pender v. State, 740 So.2d 482 (court may notice illegal sentence at any time)
Little v. State, 129 So.3d 312 (applying § 15-22-50 to similar suspended sentence issue)
Mewborn v. State, 170 So.3d 712 (when suspended sentence is unauthorized, revocation has no effect; resentencing limits)
Austin v. State, 864 So.2d 1115 (resentencing may affect plea voluntariness)
Enfinger v. State, 123 So.3d 535 (procedures when plea withdrawal may be necessary to correct manifest injustice)