From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
May 25, 1984
450 So. 2d 186 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984)

Summary

acknowledging split of authority on Abney but taking “the view that a denial of a pretrial motion based on a plea of double jeopardy is not immediately appealable”

Summary of this case from State v. Rearick

Opinion

6 Div. 194.

January 10, 1984. Rehearing Denied March 20, 1984. Certiorari Denied May 25, 1984 Alabama Supreme Court 83-640.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Dan Reynolds, J.

Roger C. Appell and David W. Haines, for appellant.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen. and Jean Williams Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.


Appellant, Benny Ray Jones, was convicted of robbery in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The issue on appeal is whether a denial of a pretrial plea of former jeopardy is immediately appealable.

Jones contends that the denial of his plea is a final judgment within the meaning of § 12-22-2, Code of Alabama 1975, and immediately appealable based on the authority of Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977). The right of appeal in a criminal case is wholly statutory and the statutes granting it are strictly construed. Bell v. State, 367 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 916, 87 S.Ct. 859, 17 L.Ed.2d 788 (1967); State v. Gautney, 344 So.2d 232 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977). The more specific, and therefore controlling, statute dealing with this subject is § 12-22-130, which indicates that a person must be convicted before he can appeal. This is in accord with all of the case law from our State.

Although the briefs submitted to this court were not helpful on this point, the issue has been decided in several other jurisdictions. In People ex rel. Mosley v. Carey, 74 Ill.2d 527, 25 Ill.Dec. 669, 387 N.E.2d 325, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 940, 100 S.Ct. 292, 62 L.Ed.2d 306 (1979), the Supreme Court of Illinois held that Abney, supra, did not constitutionally require the states to grant immediate appellate review of a pretrial denial of a plea of former jeopardy. We agree. Unlike the statute relied on in Abney, the statute relied on by Jones pertains almost exclusively to civil matters.

Additionally, the Kansas Court of Appeals in State v. Fisher, 2 Kan. App. 2d 353, 579 P.2d 167 (1978), made the same distinction. That court noted that the federal statute applied to both civil and criminal cases, while Kansas had separate statutes for each type of case. The court went on to note, appropriately so, that the Abney case did not determine whether there was a constitutional right to appeal from the denial of a pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment on the grounds of double jeopardy, but whether such denial was a final decision within the meaning of the federal statute.

Although we realize there is a split of authority, we take the view that a denial of a pretrial motion based on a plea of double jeopardy is not immediately appealable.

State v. Jenich, 94 Wis.2d 74, 288 N.W.2d 114 (1980); Commonwealth v. Bolden, 472 Pa. 602, 373 A.2d 90 (1977); El Paso v. Ruth, 194 Colo. 352, 575 P.2d 1 (1977); Gray v. State, 36 Md. App. 708, 375 A.2d 31 (1977).

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All the Judges concur.


Summaries of

Jones v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
May 25, 1984
450 So. 2d 186 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984)

acknowledging split of authority on Abney but taking “the view that a denial of a pretrial motion based on a plea of double jeopardy is not immediately appealable”

Summary of this case from State v. Rearick
Case details for

Jones v. State

Case Details

Full title:Benny Ray JONES v. STATE

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Date published: May 25, 1984

Citations

450 So. 2d 186 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984)

Citing Cases

State v. Webb

Similarly, in West v. Commonwealth , 249 Va. 241, 242, 455 S.E.2d 1 (1995), the Virginia Supreme Court found…

State v. Rearick

458 N.W.2d 747, 750 (1990) (analyzing Abney and concluding that “a defendant must be granted the opportunity…