Cooper v. State

23 Citing cases

  1. Twyman v. State

    293 Ala. 75 (Ala. 1974)   Cited 53 times
    In Twyman, this Court held that the Boykin requirement that a record affirmatively reflect that the trial court determined that the defendant entered his plea of guilty voluntarily can be satisfied by either a transcript of the colloquy or written documents or entries in the record indicating that the trial court personally addressed the defendant and determined that the guilty plea was entered voluntarily.

    This Court agrees with the rule of the Court of Criminal Appeals that the record must affirmatively show the colloquy between the court and the defendant wherein the defendant is shown to have full understanding of what the plea of guilty connotes and its consequences. See Cooper v. State, 47 Ala. App. 178, 252 So.2d 104, cert. denied, 287 Ala. 728, 252 So.2d 108. In denying the writ of certiorari in Cooper v. State, supra, this Court made an expression that this Court did not wish to be understood as approving or disapproving all of the language contained in the opinion of that case in the Court of Criminal Appeals.

  2. Carter v. State

    291 Ala. 83 (Ala. 1973)   Cited 84 times
    In Carter v. State, 291 Ala. 83, 277 So. 2d 896 (1973), the Alabama Supreme Court held that ‘a defendant, prior to pleading guilty, must be advised of the maximum and minimum potential punishment for his crime’ by the trial court in order to sustain a ruling that the defendant voluntarily entered a guilty plea.

    Marlin M. Mooneyham, Montgomery, for appellant. Before a guilty plea can be accepted by the trial court, the record must affirmatively show that the plea was voluntarily and understandingly made; that the defendant was informed of his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination; that he was informed of his right to a jury trial; that he was informed of his right to confront one's accusers and that he was informed of what the plea connotes and of its consequence, i. e., minimum and maximum punishment allowed by law: Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274; Dunkin v. State, 47 Ala. App. 696, 260 So.2d 604; Clark v. State, 48 Ala. App. 108, 262 So.2d 310; Powell v. State, 47 Ala. App. 622, 259 So.2d 675; Cooper v. State, 47 Ala. App. 178, 252 So.2d 104; Spidell v. State, 48 Ala. App. 24, 261 So.2d 443; Jones v. State, 48 Ala. App. 32, 261 So.2d 451. William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and George White, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

  3. O. L. Cooper v. State

    252 So. 2d 108 (Ala. 1971)   Cited 24 times

    After remand, 45 Ala. App. 119, 226 So.2d 388, and dismissal of certiorari, 284 Ala. 728, 226 So.2d 391, O. L. Cooper, Sr., alias, was convicted of the offense of grand larceny by the Circuit Court of Pike County, Riley P. Green, J., and he appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals, 47 Ala. App. 178, 252 So.2d 104, reversed and remanded. The State applied for a rehearing which was denied and the State then filed an application for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

  4. Sheehan v. State

    411 So. 2d 824 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982)   Cited 20 times
    Stating that most basic logic and reflection makes it apparent that separate offenses merit separate punishments

    A. The defendant relies heavily upon the following language of Cooper v. State, 47 Ala. App. 178, 252 So.2d 104, cert. denied, 287 Ala. 728, 252 So.2d 108 (1971). "This appellant was not informed and it is not shown that he understood the three constitutional rights waived by his plea of guilty, and that he understood he waived those rights by such a plea.

  5. Bailey v. State

    262 So. 2d 636 (Ala. Crim. App. 1972)   Cited 1 times

    A guilty plea is invalid if the defendant did not know the maximum possible penalty for the offense. Tucker v. U.S., 409 F.2d 1291; Hall v. State, 45 Ala. App. 252, 228 So.2d 863; Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274; Cooper v. State, 47 Ala. App. 178, 252 So.2d 104. The record on appeal must disclose that the defendant voluntarily and understandingly entered his plea of guilty. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461; Cooper v. State, 47 Ala. App. 178, 252 So.2d 104. William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Samuel L. Adams, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

  6. Ex Parte Rivers

    597 So. 2d 1308 (Ala. 1992)   Cited 60 times
    In Ex parte Rivers, 597 So.2d 1308 (Ala. 1991), the court held that a guilty plea entered by a defendant who had not been advised of his possible minimum and maximum sentences is not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently given, so that the judgment of conviction must be reversed and the case remanded.

    We reverse and remand. Carter v. State notes that subsequent to the United States Supreme Court case of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), it became established that the defendant must be informed of the maximum and minimum possible sentences as an absolute constitutional prerequisite to the acceptance of a guilty plea. Carter v. State, citing Jones v. State, 48 Ala. App. 32, 261 So.2d 451 (1972); Spidell v. State, 48 Ala. App. 24, 261 So.2d 443 (1972); People v. Ingeneri, 7 Ill. App.3d 809, 288 N.E.2d 550 (1972); People v. Buck, 7 Ill. App.3d 758, 288 N.E.2d 548 (1972); Cooper v. State, 47 Ala. App. 178, 252 So.2d 104 (1971), cert. denied, 287 Ala. 728, 252 So.2d 108 (1971). "Boykin stands for the proposition that a defendant is constitutionally entitled to have information concerning the range of punishment prescribed by the act to which he may be sentenced and the consequences of the conviction at the time he enters his plea."

  7. Walcott v. State

    288 Ala. 546 (Ala. 1972)   Cited 33 times

    This Court agrees with the rule of the Court of Criminal Appeals that the record must affirmatively show the colloquy between the court and the defendant wherein the defendant is shown to have full understanding of what the plea of guilty connotes and its consequences. See Cooper v. State, 47 Ala. App. 178, 252 So.2d 104, cert. denied, 287 Ala. 728, 252 So.2d 108. In denying the writ of certiorari in Cooper v. State, supra, this Court made an expression that this Court did not wish to be understood as approving or disapproving all of the language contained in the opinion of that case in the Court of Criminal Appeals.

  8. White v. State

    4 So. 3d 1208 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008)   Cited 7 times
    Refusing to remand for imposition of the sentence enhancements in §§ 13A–12–250 and 13A–12–270 where, although the enhancements were charged in the indictment, the State did not include any facts in the factual basis for the pleas to support imposition of the enhancements

    Citing Carter v. State, 291 Ala. 83, 277 So.2d 896 (1973), the Alabama Supreme Court reversed Rivers's conviction. "`" Carter v. State notes that subsequent to the United States Supreme Court case of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), it became established that the defendant must be informed of the maximum and minimum possible sentences as an absolute constitutional prerequisite to the acceptance of a guilty plea. Carter v. State, citing Jones v. State, 48 Ala.App. 32, 261 So.2d 451 (1972); Spidell v. State, 48 Ala.App. 24, 261 So.2d 443 (1972); People v. Ingeneri, 7 Ill.App.3d 809, 288 N.E.2d 550 (1972); People v. Buck, 7 Ill.App.3d 758, 288 N.E.2d 548 (1972); Cooper v. State, 47 Ala.App. 178, 252 So.2d 104 (1971), cert. denied, 287 Ala. 728, 252 So.2d 108 (1971). ` Boykin stands for the proposition that a defendant is constitutionally entitled to have information concerning the range of punishment prescribed by the act to which he may be sentenced and the consequences of the conviction at the time he enters his guilty plea.' Coleman v. Alabama, 827 F.2d 1469, 1473 (11th Cir. 1987).

  9. Riley v. State

    892 So. 2d 471 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)   Cited 12 times
    Granting Rule 32 relief where the petitioner's guilty plea was involuntary and instructing the circuit court to set aside the petitioner's conviction and sentence

    Citing Carter v. State, 291 Ala. 83, 277 So.2d 896 (1973), the Alabama Supreme Court reversed Rivers's conviction. "` Carter v. State notes that subsequent to the United States Supreme Court case of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), it became established that the defendant must be informed of the maximum and minimum possible sentences as an absolute constitutional prerequisite to the acceptance of a guilty plea. Carter v. State, citing Jones v. State, 48 Ala.App. 32, 261 So.2d 451 (1972); Spidell v. State, 48 Ala.App. 24, 261 So.2d 443 (1972); People v. Ingeneri, 7 Ill.App.3d 809, 288 N.E.2d 550 (1972); People v. Buck, 7 Ill.App.3d 758, 288 N.E.2d 548 (1972); Cooper v. State, 47 Ala.App. 178, 252 So.2d 104 (1971), cert. denied, 287 Ala. 728, 252 So.2d 108 (1971). " Boykin stands for the proposition that a defendant is constitutionally entitled to have information concerning the range of punishment prescribed by the act to which he may be sentenced and the consequences of the conviction at the time he enters his guilty plea.

  10. White v. State

    888 So. 2d 1288 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)   Cited 7 times

    Citing Carter v. State, 291 Ala. 83, 277 So.2d 896 (1973), the Alabama Supreme Court reversed Rivers's conviction. " Carter v. State notes that subsequent to the United States Supreme Court case of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), it became established that the defendant must be informed of the maximum and minimum possible sentences as an absolute constitutional prerequisite to the acceptance of a guilty plea. Carter v. State, citing Jones v. State, 48 Ala.App. 32, 261 So.2d 451 (1972); Spidell v. State, 48 Ala.App. 24, 261 So.2d 443 (1972); People v. Ingeneri, 7 Ill.App.3d 809, 288 N.E.2d 550 (1972); People v. Buck, 7 Ill.App.3d 758, 288 N.E.2d 548 (1972); Cooper v. State, 47 Ala.App. 178, 252 So.2d 104 (1971), cert. denied, 287 Ala. 728, 252 So.2d 108 (1971). ` Boykin stands for the proposition that a defendant is constitutionally entitled to have information concerning the range of punishment prescribed by the act to which he may be sentenced and the consequences of the conviction at the time he enters his guilty plea.' Coleman v. Alabama, 827 F.2d 1469, 1473 (11th. Cir. 1987).