Wells v. State
93 So. 3d 155
Ala. Crim. App.2011Background
- Wells-Davis pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of methamphetamine and morphine; sentences run concurrently with each other and with another marijuana conviction, plus fines/assessments.
- She was indicted on four counts for possession of four controlled substances (methamphetamine, morphine, diazepam, dihydrocodeine) from the same incident and moved to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss; Wells-Davis pled guilty to two counts of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, reserving rights to appeal the denial.
- The State argued Hollaway misinterpreted the statute and that possession of multiple substances in the same incident could be separate offenses under the then-current law, with the unit of prosecution differing from the older, plural-language statute.
- The law changed from prohibiting possession of “controlled substances” (plural) to prohibiting possession of “a controlled substance” (singular), which the court analyzes to determine the unit of prosecution and potential for multiple convictions.
- On rehearing, the court held the statutory change is substantive and retroactively applicable, overruling Hollaway and concluding Wells could be convicted of possessing each controlled substance under the new unit-of-prosecution definition.
- The final result affirms Wells’s convictions for each controlled substance and upholds the new unit-of-prosecution interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unit of prosecution under §13A-12-212(a)(1) | Wells argued Vogel/Smith logic—multiple substances equal multiple offenses. | Wells contends the prior Hollaway rule applies; single offense. | Unit is per substance; multiple convictions permitted for different drugs. |
| Retroactivity of the statutory change | Retroactivity should be foreclosed by Hollaway. | Capstone change applies retroactively to Wells. | Statutory change is substantive and retroactive. |
| Effect of Hollaway v. State after language change | Hollaway governs multiple counts. | Language change supersedes Hollaway. | Hollaway overruled; new unit-of-prosecution governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vogel v. State, 426 So.2d 863 (Ala.Crim.App.1980) (possession of multiple substances at one time is a single offense under the older statute)
- Hollaway v. State, 979 So.2d 839 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (separate convictions for two substances violated double jeopardy under prior logic; later overruled by statute change)
- McClendon v. State, 513 So.2d 102 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) (discussed unit of possession and distinctions between felonies and misdemeanors; guides interpretation of unit of offense)
- Smith v. State, 472 So.2d 677 (Ala.Crim.App.1984) (possession of multiple substances can constitute a single offense when same possession event exists under prior law)
- Girard v. State, 883 So.2d 717 (Ala.2003) (use of ‘a’ vs ‘any’ to describe unit of prosecution; legislative intent guidance)