MacK v. State
MacK v. State
Opinion
The appellant, Tony Terrell Mack, appeals from the denial of his motion to reconsider his sentence, made pursuant to §
On September 20, 2004, Mack filed a motion for reconsideration in the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court, seeking reconsideration of the life sentence imposed as a result of his conviction for unlawful distribution of a controlled substance. On December 2, 2004, Mack filed an amended motion for reconsideration, reasserting his request to be resentenced for his cocaine-distribution conviction and adding a request to be resentenced for his escape conviction.
On January 20, 2005, Circuit Judge Thomas S. Wilson, the same judge who sentenced Mack in the cases in question, denied Mack's motion. In its order, the court stated:
"The defendant files this motion for sentence reduction pursuant to Code of Alabama, §
13A-5-9.1 . This Code section allows retroactive application of the amendment to §13A-5-9 allowing the court to sentence a defendant convicted of a Class A felony with three prior felony convictions to be sentenced to life without parole or life. The defendant in this case received a life sentence. Therefore, there is no relief available to the defendant under §13A-5-9.1 . The petition is therefore overruled and denied."
(C. 10.) This appeal followed.
Mack argues that the trial court erred when it summarily dismissed his motion for reconsideration. Specifically, Mack contends that persons convicted of Class B felony offenses and who have at least three prior felony convictions are likewise eligible to file a motion for reconsideration pursuant to §
In 2000, the Alabama Legislature amended §
In 2001, the Alabama Legislature enacted Alabama Act No.
"The provisions of Section
13A-5-9 shall be applied retroactively by the sentencing judge or presiding judge for consideration of early parole of each nonviolent convicted offender based on evaluations performed by the Department *Page 1001 of Corrections and approved by the Board of Pardons and Paroles and submitted to the court."
In Kirby v. State,
"Reading §
13A-5-9.1 in conjunction with §13A-5-9 , it is clear that a sentencing judge or a presiding judge can resentence only two narrowly defined classes of habitual offenders: those who had been sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole under the mandatory provisions of the HFOA upon conviction of a Class A felony with no prior Class A felony convictions; and those who had been sentenced to life imprisonment under the mandatory provisions of the HFOA upon conviction of a Class B felony. Moreover, of those habitual offenders, the judge can resentence only those who are nonviolent offenders."We conclude that the state's trial judges have the authority under the statute to determine whether a defendant is a non-violent offender and that those judges are competent to make that determination based upon the nature of the defendant's underlying conviction, other factors brought before the judge in the record of the case, and information submitted to the judge by the DOC and the Parole Board concerning the inmate's behavior while incarcerated."
Mack was convicted of one count of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance and one count of first-degree escape; both of these offenses are Class B felonies. See §§
Based on the foregoing, this case is remanded for the trial court to enter a new order addressing the merits of Mack's request that he be resentenced for the aforementioned Class B felonies pursuant to §
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.*
McMILLAN, P.J., and COBB, BASCHAB, and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Tony Terrell MacK v. State of Alabama.
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published