536 So. 2d 971 | Ala. Crim. App. | 1988
The appellant, Curtis Lee Mack, pleaded guilty to an attempt to possess a controlled substance, cocaine, in violation of § 20-2-162, Code of Alabama 1975. He was sentenced to two years' probation and ordered to serve six consecutive weekends in the Montgomery County Jail.
On appeal, Mack argues that attempted possession of a controlled substance, according to §
Section
"(a) A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, with the intent to commit a specific offense, he does any overt act towards the commission of such offense.
"(b) It is no defense under this section that the offense charged to have been attempted was, under the attendant circumstances, factually or legally impossible of commission, if such offense could have been committed had the attendant circumstances been as the defendant believed them to be.
"(c) A person is not liable under this section if, under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of this criminal intent, he avoided the commission of the offense attempted by abandoning his criminal effort and, if mere abandonment is insufficient to accomplish such avoidance, by taking further and affirmative steps which prevented the commission thereof. The burden of injecting this issue is on the defendant, but this does not shift the burden of proof.
"(d) An attempt is a:
"(1) Class A felony if the offense attempted is murder.
"(2) Class B felony if the offense attempted is a Class A felony.
"(3) Class C felony if the offense attempted is a Class B felony.
"(4) Class A misdemeanor if the offense attempted is a Class C felony.
"(5) Class B misdemeanor if the offense attempted is a Class A misdemeanor.
"(6) Class C misdemeanor if the offense attempted is a Class B misdemeanor.
"(7) Violation if the offense attempted is a Class C misdemeanor."
Although §
"(a) A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a controlled substance crime if he engages in the conduct defined in section
13A-4-2 (a), and the crime attempted is a controlled substance crime."(b) The principles of liability and defenses for an attempt to commit a controlled substance crime are the same as those specified in sections
13A-4-2 (b) through (c), and in section13A-4-5 ."(c) An attempt to commit a controlled substance crime shall be punished the same as the controlled substance crime attempted."
The appellant argues that when the legislature repealed §
A basic principle of statutory construction is that a general statute yields to a specific statute where there is a conflict between the two. See Murphy v. State,
Coan v. State,"Another well-settled canon of statutory construction is that statutes relating to the same subject, and adopted at the same time as constituting one system of law, will be construed in pari materia so as to effectuate the legislative intent, giving each, where it is reasonably possible to do so, a field of operation."
The case of McDavid v. State,
Both this case and the McDavid case turn on the question of whether to apply *973
the general criminal attempts statute as set out in §
The statute punishes the attempt and the substantive crime as the same class of felony. This is not an unconstitutional scheme of punishment. See McDavid, supra.
The court did not err in its application of the sentencing statutes.
AFFIRMED.
All the Judges concur. *1364