'"Perry v. State, 861 So. 2d 1, 3-4 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002) (some emphasis added). Thus, at Barr's second sentencing hearing, provided the State satisfies the notice requirement in Rule 26.6(b)(3)(ii), Ala. R. Crim. P. and its burden of proof in Rule 26.6(b)(3)(iii), Ala. R. Crim. P., the State may seek to enhance Barr's sentence under the HFOA with
If the circuit court determines that a hearing should be held to effectuate this resentencing, the State may introduce evidence of any proper prior convictions, after notifying Holliday, even if these prior convictions were not used for enhancement purposes at his original sentencing. Barr v. State, 4 So.3d 578, 582-83 (Ala.Crim.App.2008), quoting Perry v. State, 861 So.2d 1, 3-4 (Ala.Crim.App.2002), quoting in turn Clements v. State, 709 So.2d 1321 (Ala.Crim.App.1997) (" ‘ " ‘ If, for whatever reason, another sentencing hearing is required and the State had notified the defendant of its intent to proceed under the HFOA at the previous sentencing hearing, then the State can re-notify the defendant of its intent to proceed under the HFOA and can notify the defendant that it will attempt to prove all previous felony convictions that the State is aware of, regardless of whether the State had attempted to prove those particular convictions at the previous sentencing hearing.’ " ' " ).
"709 So.2d at 1323." Perry v. State, 861 So.2d 1, 3-4 (Ala.Crim.App. 2002) (some emphasis added). Thus, at Barr's second sentencing hearing, provided the State satisfies the notice requirement in Rule 26.6(b)(3)(ii), Ala.R.Crim.P. and its burden of proof in Rule 26.6(b)(3)(iii), Ala.R.Crim.P., the State may seek to enhance Barr's sentence under the HFOA with not only the assault and manslaughter convictions which were relied upon at Barr's first sentencing hearing, but also the unlawful-possession-of-a-controlled-substance conviction, which was not relied on at the first sentencing hearing, and with any other prior felony convictions of which it is aware.
"It is well settled that `a sentence imposed for escape cannot be enhanced under the [Habitual Felony Offender] Act by a prior felony conviction for which the defendant was confined at the time of the escape if that prior conviction was a necessary element in proving the escape.'" Perry v. State, 861 So.2d 1, 3 (Ala.Crim.App. 2002), quoting Moncrief v. State, 551 So.2d 1175, 1177 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989). See also Hall v. State, 687 So.2d 215 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996); Humphrey v. State, 686 So.2d 490 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996); and Ringer v. State, 501 So.2d 493 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986).
The Supreme Court of Alabama denied that petition. Ex parte City of Dothan Pers. Bd., [Ms. 1001978, Feb. 1, 2002] 861 So.2d 1 (Ala. 2002). The trial court reviewed the evidence presented to the Board.