"`Because no single instance of alleged improper conduct constituted reversible error, this Court will not consider the cumulative effect to be greater error. McNeely v. State, 524 So.2d 375 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986); Johnson v. State, 541 So.2d 1112 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989).' Crymes v. State, 630 So.2d 120, 123-24 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993), aff'd, 630 So.2d 125 (Ala. 1993).
The proper way to attack the validity of a prior conviction is to file a petition for post-conviction relief from that conviction. See e.g. Ex parte Scott, 460 So.2d 1371, 1374 (Ala. 1984); Johnson v. State, 541 So.2d 1112, 1115 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989); Jones v. State, 431 So.2d 1367, 1372 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). Goodwin v. State, 516 So.2d 818 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), writ quashed, 516 So.2d 821 (Ala. 1987), involved a challenge to an enhanced sentence similar to the one advanced by Lochli.
Bentley v. State, 450 So.2d 197, 199 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984). Similarly, Rule 902(4) of the Alabama Rules of Evidence ... provides for self-authentication of certified copies of public records."); Johnson v. State, 541 So.2d 1112, 1115 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989) ("The proper method for proving prior convictions under the Habitual Offender Act is by the introduction of certified copies of the previous convictions."); Wright v. State, 709 So.2d 1318, 1320 (Ala.Cr.App. 1997) (Copies of case action summary sheets and docket sheets provided as proof of prior felony convictions signed and certified as a true copy by an officer with lawful custody of the original "were properly certified for purposes of application of the Habitual Felony Offender Act."); Ginn v. State, 894 So.2d 793, 798-799 (Ala.Cr.App. 2004) (State met its burden of proof for sentence enhancement under the Habitual Felony Offender Act with respect to defendant's prior Georgia convictions by introducing certified copies of Georgia indictment charging defendant with burglary and theft and Georgia trial court's sentencing orders regarding the burglary and theft convictions.); Poole v. State, 710 So.2d 497, 500 (Ala.Cr.App. 1997) ("The certified copies of the 'Bill of Indictment,' 'Fi
Alabama cases hold that once an objection is made to an allegedly invalid prior conviction, the proper forum in which to challenge the conviction is the court that imposed it. See Johnson v. State, 541 So.2d 1112, 1115 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989); Jones v. State, 431 So.2d 1367, 1372 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). These holdings are consistent with the general rule.
In the present case, Walker never had an opportunity to inspect the restaurant's records for the second six months of 1990; nor did Walker have reason to expect that the State would elicit the bookkeeper's summary testimony as circumstantial evidence of Walker's guilt. The State attempts to rebut Walker's argument by asserting that the bookkeeper was merely testifying to information within his personal knowledge and that, therefore, the "best evidence rule" should not apply. It is true that several decisions, namely Allen v. State, 555 So.2d 1185 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989), and Johnson v. State, 541 So.2d 1112, 1116 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989), have stated that when a witness testifies based upon his own personal knowledge, independent from any document, the "best evidence" rule does not apply. Here, however, it is clear from the record that the bookkeeper did not testify independently of the restaurant's internal records, but relied exclusively on them.
The Court of Criminal Appeals, in an unpublished memorandum opinion, 575 So.2d 1256 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990), held that the issue was not properly before that court because, the court wrote, Madden should have attacked the validity of the prior convictions by petitioning for post-conviction relief in Georgia. See Johnson v. State, 541 So.2d 1112, 1115 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989). Madden argues here that the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision conflicts with this Court's decision in Ex parte Lockett, 548 So.2d 1045 (Ala. 1989).
“Certified copies of case action summary sheets, docket sheets or other records of the court are admissible for the purpose of proving prior convictions of a crime, if the prior conviction is otherwise admissible under the laws of this state.”Under the language of this statute, as well as Alabama caselaw interpreting this statute, see, e.g., Richardson v. State, 446 So.2d 662, 665 (Ala.Crim.App.1983) ; Kaska v. State, 677 So.2d 822 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) ; Stout v. State, 547 So.2d 894, 900–01 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) ; and Johnson v. State, 541 So.2d 1112, 1115–16 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), prior convictions for the purpose of applying the Habitual Felony Offender Act, if not admitted to, must be proved by a certified record of the court, such as a docket sheet or case-action-summary sheet, because they are the best evidence of the validity of the prior felony convictions. See McDavid v. State, 439 So.2d 750, 752 (Ala.Crim.App.1983) ; Wright v. State, 709 So.2d 1318, 1320 (Ala.Crim.App.1997).
Hosch v. State, 155 So.3d 1048, 1105 (Ala.Crim.App.2013). See also Mack v. State, 607 So.2d 314 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) ; Barnes v. State, 565 So.2d 1274 (Ala.Crim.App.1990) ; Johnson v. State, 541 So.2d 1112 (Ala.Crim.App.1989) ; Thompson v. State, 401 So.2d 285 (Ala.Crim.App.1981). “A trial court's following of an accepted pattern jury instruction weighs heavily against any finding of plain error.”
The proper forum for attacking the validity of the prior conviction would be by Ala.R.Cr.P. 32 post-conviction petition in the court of conviction. Ex parte Madden, 602 So.2d 1192 (Ala.1991); Johnson v. State, 541 So.2d 1112 (Ala.Cr.App.1989). Here, the trial court could not have looked beyond the facial validity of the conviction.
The proper forum for attacking the validity of the prior conviction would be by Ala.R.Cr.P. 32 post-conviction petition in the court of conviction. Ex parte Madden, 602 So. 2d 1192 (Ala. 1991); Johnson v. State, 541 So. 2d 1112 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989). Here, the trial court could not have looked beyond the facial validity of the conviction.