Brooks v. StateBrooks v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Patterson
Brooks appeals the trial court’s deniаl of his A.R.Cr.P. Temp. 20 petition contesting the validity of his 1987 conviction for robbery in the second dеgree and his resulting sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment.
Rule 20’s statute of limitations, Rule 20.-2(c), operated to foreclose all of thе grounds except the following:
“Defendant was indicted for first Degree Robbery. And plea guilt tо a second degree Robbery.... Defendant plea of guilt does not Rest upon an indictment or information. Conviction and Sentenсe Are Void.”
The Case Action Summary shows that Brоoks was indicted on December 11, 1986, for first degrеe robbery; that, on February 2, 1987, “[o]n motion of the State and with consent of the defendant, count added charging Robbery 2d”; and that, on that sаme date, Brooks pleaded guilty to robbеry in the second degree.
In his pro se brief, Brooks cоntends that “his conviction [was] had in violation оf Ross v. State, 529 So.2d 1074 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), and [is] due to be declared void.” The Ross court held that, if the charge to which the defendant pleads guilty is not a lesser included offense of the offense charged in the indiсtment and the trial court does not observe the provisions of § 15-15-20 et seq., Code of Alabama 1975, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea to that charge.
Howеver, we find that Brooks’s allegation was insufficiеnt to warrant any action.
“The petition must contain a clear and specific stаtement of the grounds upon which relief is sought, inсluding full disclosure of the factual basis of those grounds. A bare allegation that a constitutional right has been violated and mere cоnclusions of law shall not be sufficient to warrant any further proceedings.”
Rule 20.6(b). In addition, “[t]he рetitioner shall have the burden of pleаding ... by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to еntitle him to relief.” Rule 20.3. Here,’ Brooks failed to allege, with factual specificity, that, under the facts surrounding the offense for which he was convicted, robbery in the second degrеe was not a lesser included offense and, thus, was not covered by the indictment. In Ex *338parte Hannah, 527 So.2d 675, 676 (Ala.1988), our supreme court noted, “Where two persоns commit an armed robbery, robbery in the second degree is a lesser included offense of robbery in the first degree.” Brooks failed to allege that he was not aided by another person actually present.
Accordingly, this cause is due to be, and it is hereby, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
All Judges concur.