However, the record is silent as to whether appellant was informed of the benefits of the Youthful Offender Act. Sometime prior to the acceptance of appellant's plea, appellant should have been apprised of his right to request youthful offender status. Pride v. State, 55 Ala. App. 575, 317 So.2d 541 (1974), aff'd, 294 Ala. 359, 317 So.2d 542 (1975). Ireland v. State, 47 Ala. App. 65, 250 So.2d 602 (1971).
The attorney for the Petitioner in this case furnishes the Court with a memorandum of authorities which contains a citation to the proposition that where the Court fails to advise the Defendant, Petitioner of his right to apply for the status of youthful offender before his plea of guilty that the case will be remanded to the Trial Court for the determination as to whether or not in the Trial Court's discretion the Defendant should be treated as a youthful offender. Cook [Cooks] v. State [ 55 Ala. App. 537], 317 So.2d 504 (1974); Pride v. State [ 55 Ala. App. 575], 317 So.2d 541 (1974). Other cases are to this effect also.
We now discuss that contention on its merits. We agree with appellant's assertion that the trial court owes an affirmative duty to apprise an accused youthful offender of the benefits of the Youthful Offender Act. Morgan v. State, 291 Ala. 764, 287 So.2d 914 (1973); Whitfield v. State, 56 Ala. App. 653, 324 So.2d 793 (1975); Clemmons v. State, 294 Ala. 746, 321 So.2d 238, aff'g Ala.Cr.App., 321 So.2d 237 (1974); Pride v. State, 55 Ala. App. 575, 317 So.2d 541 (1974), aff'd 294 Ala. 359, 317 So.2d 542. We do not agree with appellant's apparent contention that in the cases in which appellant had been previously convicted it was obligatory upon the trial court to rule on any application therein for benefits of the Youthful Offender Act before acceptance of a guilty plea.
Title 15, ยง 266(1), Code of Alabama, as amended. See also Edwards v. State, 55 Ala. App. 544, 317 So.2d 511; Pride v. State, 55 Ala. App. 575, 317 So.2d 541; Clemmons v. State, 55 Ala.App. ___, 321 So.2d 238 all this day decided. The trial court is further instructed that the hearing be held speedily, and that a full record be made together with the court's determination.
We are constrained to this action by the cogent dictum in Morgan v. State, 291 Ala. 764, 287 So.2d 914. See also, Edwards v. State, 55 Ala. App. 544, 317 So.2d 511, Pride v. State (8 Div. 537), 55 Ala. App. 575, 317 So.2d 541, and Clemons v. State, 56 Ala. App. 728, 321 So.2d 237, all this day decided. Accordingly, the application is granted and the cause is