Brown v. StateBrown v. State
The appellant, Christopher Michael Brown, pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, two counts of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance, marihuana, a violation of
The record reveals that on October 22, 1996, the appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charges of unlawful distribution of marihuana, a Class B felony. (C.R. 10, 21.) On November 12, 1996, the appellant withdrew his plea of not guilty, and pleaded guilty to both counts. (R. 2.) During the guilty plea сolloquy, the appellant stated that he had read and understood his rights, that he understood the сharges contained in the indictment, and that he understood the minimum and maximum sentence that could be imposed upon conviction for each offense. (R. 2-7.)
The appellant also executed an “Explanation of Rights and Plea of Guilty” form, commonly known as the Ireland form1, which reflected the nаture of the guilty plea and the appellant‘s understanding of his constitutional rights. (C.R. 11, 22.) The form apprisеd the appellant of the correct sentencing range for a conviction for a Class B felony, and it further advised him of the state‘s intent to seek enhancement of the sentences under
The trial court determined that the guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. The trial court‘s order states that the appellant was advised of his rights and the consequences of рleading guilty before his guilty plea was accepted. (C.R. 2, 16.)
I.
The appellant now challenges the voluntariness of his plea because, he claims, the trial court failed 1) to adequatеly explain the nature of the charges; 2) to establish a sufficient factual basis for the guilty pleа; and 3) to advise him of the minimum and maximum sentencing range, including the application of any enhanсement statutes.
The record indicates that the appellant did not object at any time during the plea proceeding or during the sentencing hearing, and he did not file a motion to withdraw the plea, or a motion for a new trial. Accordingly, we find that the appellant‘s claims are nоt preserved for appellate review. See Lasner v. State, 689 So.2d 1004 (Ala.Cr.App. 1996); Moore v. State, 668 So.2d 100, 102 (Ala.Cr.App. 1995) (establishing a factual basis for a guilty plea is a separate component of the plea process and the failure to do so must be raised in the trial court in order for the issue to be preserved for appellate review); Stinson v. State, 669 So.2d 1010, 1011 (Ala. 1995) (the trial court must be given the first opportunity to rectify any error it may have made сoncerning sentencing).
Moreover, even if the appellant‘s assertions had been preserved for appellate review, his claims are without merit because the record reflects that the appellant knowingly and voluntarily signed the Ireland form.
” ‘The record must affirmatively show the cоlloquy between the court and the defendant wherein the defendant is shown to have a full understanding of what the plea of guilty connotes and its consequences.’ Walcott v. State, 48 Ala. App. 754, 263 So.2d 177 (Ala.Cr.App.), 288 Ala. 546, 547, 263 So.2d 178 (Ala. 1972). This colloquy may be supplemented, however, by a validly executed Ireland form if the trial court ascertains, on the record, that the accused has read and understood the rights enumerated in that form. Twyman v. State, 293 Ala. 75, 300 So.2d 124 (1974); Cashin v. State, 428 So.2d 179 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); McNalley v. State, 468 So.2d 209 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985).”
Humber v. State, 481 So.2d 452, 454 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985) (footnote omitted; emphasis added).
II.
The attorney general asks this Court to remand this case to the circuit court for the assessment of a penalty рursuant to the “Demand Reduction Assessment Act,” codified at
The appellant‘s convictions are affirmed and the case is remanded to the trial court for the express purpose of imposing a fine pursuant to
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.*
All the Judges concur.