Gamble v. State
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Edwards v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2007)
- Bonner v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2001)
- J.M.M. v. State of Alabama (Appeal from Russell Circuit Court: CC-20-755) (Ala. Crim. App. 2025)
- A.E.M. v. State of Alabama (Appeal from Russell Circuit Court: CC-20-754) (Ala. Crim. App. 2025)
- Woods v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2016)
- Woods v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2016)
- Lonnie Bailey v. State of Alabama. (Ala. Crim. App. 2011)
- Vann v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2003)
- Trawick v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2003)
- Fitch v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2001)
- Wild v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2000)
- Spangler v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1997)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Jerome O. Gamble was convicted of the unlawful sale of a controlled substance in violation of §
To prove a prima facie case in a criminal prosecution, the State must "fulfill its duty of proving the elements of the offense so that the jury may be allowed to consider its case."Eldridge v. State,
Additionally, the trial court surely understood defense counsel's objection to be a challenge to the State's failure to prove a prima facie case. When the trial court understands the basis for defense counsel's objection, a reviewing court should not be "too strict in its application of the waiver principle."Ex parte Webb,
"A person commits the crime of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance if, except as otherwise authorized, he sells, furnishes, gives away, manufactures, delivers, or distributes a controlled substance. . . ." §
"I called Mr. Gamble over to the vehicle and asked him where could I purchase two $20 rocks of crack cocaine. . . . He immediately said he could get it from one of the guys standing back in the yard. . . . He gave me . . . a homemade crack pipe to hold while he went to purchase the crack from somebody standing in the yard. I gave him two $20 bills and he went to purchase the crack. . . . Shortly after he went over near [a] trailer, not 10 or 15 feet away, and spoke with somebody there. They conversed for a few minutes. Then he came to the truck shortly afterwards with two crack rocks of cocaine. . . . He gave me two $20 crack rocks and I gave him the $40 and gave him his homemade crack pipe back. . . . At that point he began to beg for some of the crack cocaine, physically grabbed my arm, and demanded I give him some of the crack for his service. I told him it did not work like that. It was just enough for me. I couldn't do that. And, he continued to ask for some, beg for some of it, in the end I had to tell him to let my arm go, physically jerk away from him, to get my arm away with from him. . . . He said he lived up the road on the left-hand side. And, anytime I wanted to come back, if I needed some marijuana or anything else, if I needed something just deal with him, not to deal with anybody else. Also he told me he lived in a house on the left-hand side of the road."
R. 19-21.
The jury found Gamble guilty of "the sale of cocaine." R. 71. Sufficient evidence was presented from which the jury could infer that the appellant was selling a controlled substance for another seller with whom he was associated. See Hemphill v.State,
The sentencing order does not reflect how the trial court arrived at the 15-year sentence. It should be clear from the sentencing order that a defendant received the proper base sentence and the proper enhancements. It is not clear in this case. The transcript of the sentencing hearing does not clarify the trial court's intent in imposing the present sentence. Therefore, we must remand this case with instructions to the trial court to amend its sentencing order to reflect a proper sentence in accordance with this opinion.
The trial court correctly denied Gamble's motion for a judgment of acquittal but perhaps sentenced Gamble incorrectly. This case is remanded for sentencing in conformity with the above opinion. A return to remand shall be filed with this court within 63 days of the date of this opinion. The return to remand shall include the amended sentencing order and a transcript of any remand proceedings conducted by the trial court.
AFFIRMED AS TO CONVICTION; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS AS TO SENTENCE.*
All the Judges concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.