554 So. 2d 1142 | Ala. Crim. App. | 1989
We withdraw our opinion of October 11, 1988, and substitute the following therefor.
On original submission, we remanded this cause pursuant to our opinion in the *1143
companion case of Hergott v. State,
A lengthy recitation of the facts of this case is not necessary because they are sufficiently set forth in our opinion on rehearing in the companion case of Kaercher v.State,
Appellant's arguments on appeal regarding the denial of his motion to suppress were addressed in Parts I and II ofKaercher v. State; therefore, in light of the fact that appellant and Kaercher are, for the purposes of their appeals, in essence, identically situated and make the same arguments, we choose not to repeat our analyses of those arguments here. In finding that appellant and Kaercher are, in essence, identically situated for purposes of resolution of their appeals, we note that appellant initially pleaded guilty to possessing "marijuana growing on my property." (Emphasis added.) However, later in the colloquy, this admission was qualified by appellant's attorney's acquiescence to the following comment made by the district attorney: "What I am saying is the plea is a general possession plea that any 2.2 pounds that there is evidence to support based on the transcript." (Emphasis added.) We find that, considering these two comments in the context of the entire colloquy, appellant pleaded guilty to possession of all the marijuana. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that, in his brief, appellant stated that he "pled guilty to the charges against him." Moreover, in arguing the illegality of the search of Hergott's property, he cited United States v. Broadhurst,
APPLICATION FOR REHEARING AND RULE 39(k), A.R.App.P., MOTION GRANTED; ORIGINAL OPINION WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED.
All Judges concur.