Gray v. StateGray v. State
The appellant, Maxwell C. Gray, Jr., was convicted after a jury trial of robbery in the first degree, in violation of
Because it is necessary to remand this case to the trial court, we need address only the State‘s failure to prove all of the appellant‘s prior convictions that were used to enhance his sentence. At the sentencing hearing, the State attempted to prove three prior convictions by introducing case action summaries pursuant to
We also note that on remand the reintroduction of each of the Jefferson County case action summaries, properly certified, would not violate the double jeopardy clause of either the United States or the state constitutions. Ex parte Randle, 554 So.2d 1138 (Ala. 1989).
The appellant also argues that the Jefferson County case action summaries do not reflect that he was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. This argument, however, is procedurally barred because at sentencing the appellant objected to the lack of certification rather than a lack of counsel and a specific objection waives all grounds not specified. Fisher v. State, 439 So.2d 176 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983); Alldredge v. State, 431 So.2d 1358 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). Moreover, this argument is without merit because the case action summaries reflect that the appellant was represented by counsel.
Based on the foregoing, this cause is remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing, and the trial court shall take all action directed in sufficient time to permit the circuit clerk to make a proper return to this court at the earliest possible time and within 28 days of the release of this opinion.
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
All the Judges concur.