’ " State v. Wilkerson, 54 Ala. App. 104, 105, 305 So. 2d 378, 380 (Ala. Crim. App. 1974) (quoting 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 84 )). "Appellate courts will not pass upon a constitutional question unless some specific right of the appellant is directly involved; the appellant must belong to that class affected by the statute's provisions." State v. Woodruff, 460 So. 2d 325, 328 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984).

Even under the circumstances where a constitutional attack on a statute may be presented to the trial court prior to trial and, consequently, without benefit of a trial record, adherence to the traditional concepts of standing is required. See, e.g., State v. Friedkin, 244 Ala. 494, 14 So.2d 363 (1943); State v. Wilkerson, [ 54 Ala.App. 104, 325 So.2d 378 (1974)]; People v. Allen, 657 P.2d 447 (Colo. 1983); State v. Raybon, 242 Ga. 858, 252 S.E.2d 417 (1979); State v. Price, 237 N.W.2d 813 (Iowa 1976), appeal dismissed, 426 U.S. 916, 96 S.Ct. 2619, 49 L.Ed.2d 370 (1976); People v. Jose L., 99 Misc.2d 922, 417 N.Y.S.2d 655 (N.Y.Crim.Ct. 1979); Commonwealth v. Bonadio, 490 Pa. 91, 415 A.2d 47 (1980); Commonwealth v. Hughes, 468 Pa. 502, 364 A.2d 306 (1976).

COLEMAN, Justice. Petition of Faye Wilkerson for Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in State v. Wilkerson, 53 Ala. App. 104, 305 So.2d 378. Writ denied.

Even under the circumstances where a constitutional attack on a statute may be presented to the trial court prior to trial and, consequently, without benefit of a trial record, adherence to the traditional concepts of standing is required. See, e.g., State v. Friedkin , 244 Ala. 494, 14 So.2d 363 (1943); State v. Wilkerson , [54 Ala.App. 104, 305 So.2d 378 (1974) ]; People v. Allen , 657 P.2d 447 (Colo.1983); State v. Raybon , 242 Ga. 858, 252 S.E.2d 417 (1979); State v. Price , 237 N.W.2d 813 (Iowa 1976), appeal dismissed , 426 U.S. 916, 96 S.Ct. 2619, 49 L.Ed.2d 370 (1976); People v. Jose L. , 99 Misc.2d 922, 417 N.Y.S.2d 655 (N.Y.Crim.Ct.1979); Commonwealth v. Bonadio , 490 Pa. 91, 415 A.2d 47 (1980); Commonwealth v. Hughes , 468 Pa. 502, 364 A.2d 306 (1976).

Even under the circumstances where a constitutional attack on a statute may be presented to the trial court prior to trial and, consequently, without benefit of a trial record, adherence to the traditional concepts of standing is required. See, e.g., State v. Friedkin, 244 Ala. 494, 14 So.2d 363 (1943) ; State v. Wilkerson, [54 Ala.App. 104, 305 So.2d 378 (1974) ]; People v. Allen, 657 P.2d 447 (Colo.1983) ; State v. Raybon, 242 Ga. 858, 252 S.E.2d 417 (1979) ; State v. Price, 237 N.W.2d 813 (Iowa 1976), appeal dismissed, 426 U.S. 916, 96 S.Ct. 2619, 49 L.Ed.2d 370 (1976) ; People v. Jose L., 99 Misc.2d 922, 417 N.Y.S.2d 655 (N.Y.Crim.Ct.1979) ; Commonwealth v. Bonadio, 490 Pa. 91, 415 A.2d 47 (1980) ; Commonwealth v. Hughes, 468 Pa. 502, 364 A.2d 306 (1976).

However, he was not charged with violating any of those provisions of the [Community Notification Act]. Therefore, he does not have standing to challenge those provisions, and we will not review his constitutional challenges regarding those provisions.'), rev'd on other grounds, 894 So. 2d 751 (Ala. 2004); and State v. Wilkerson, 54 Ala. App. 104, 105, 305 So. 2d 378, 380 (1974) ('"As a general rule, in criminal prosecutions, accused has the right to assert the invalidity of the law, regulation, or rule under which he is being prosecuted [but] . . . [a]n accused affected by one portion of a statute may not plead the invalidity of another portion of the same statute not applicable to his case . . ."' (quoting 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 84)).

Therefore, he does not have standing to challenge those provisions, and we will not review his constitutional challenges regarding those provisions."), rev'd on other grounds, 894 So. 2d 751 (Ala. 2004); and State v. Wilkerson, 54 Ala. App. 104, 105, 305 So. 2d 378, 380 (1974) ("'As a general rule, in criminal prosecutions, accused has the right to assert the invalidity of the law, regulation, or rule under which he is being prosecuted [but] . . . [a]n accused affected by one portion of a statute may not plead the invalidity of another portion of the same statute not applicable to his case . . ." (quoting 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 84)). See also Byrd v. State, [Ms. CR-07-0113, May 1, 2009] ___ So. 3d (Ala. Crim. App. 2009); andTaylor v. State, 442 So. 2d 128 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983).

" ‘ " ‘ "[an] accused has the right to assert the invalidity of the law, regulation, or rule under which he is being prosecuted, but he must show that his rights are adversely affected by the statute or ordinance, and, more particularly, that his rights are thus affected by the particular feature of the statute alleged to be in conflict with the constitution." ’ " ' " 891 So.2d at 936 (quoting J.L.N., 894 So.2d at 742 (quoting State v. Wilkerson, 54 Ala.App. 104, 305 So.2d 378, 380 (Ala.Crim.App.1974) (quoting other cases))); see also McCord v. Stephens, 295 Ala. 162, 325 So.2d 155 (1975) (holding that a defendant cannot challenge the constitutionality of a statute when he cannot show that the alleged unconstitutional feature of the statute adversely affected him); Beckworth v. State, 946 So.2d 490 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (same). Applying these principles to a similar situation, this court, in Woods v. State, 13 So.3d 1, 39 (Ala.Crim.App.2007), held that the appellant did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of Alabama's judicial-override provision because that provision was not applied in his case (i.e., the judge followed the jury's recommendation of death).

For example, in Bland v. State, 395 So.2d 164, 166 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981), we cited County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 99 S.Ct. 2213, 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979), for the following general proposition: "A party has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute only insofar as it has an adverse impact on his own rights; as a general rule, if there is no constitutional defect in the application of a statute to a litigant, he does not have standing to argue that it would be unconstitutional if applied to third parties in hypothetical situations." In State v. Wilkerson, 54 Ala.App. 104, 305 So.2d 378, 380, cert. denied, 293 Ala. 774, 305 So.2d 382 (1974), in finding that the appellant could not challenge the constitutionality of a statute because he could not show that the statute's unconstitutional feature adversely affected him, we cited the general rule, as follows:'" "' . . . in criminal prosecution, accused has the right to assert the invalidity of the law, regulation, or rule under which he is being prosecuted, but he must show that his rights are adversely affected by the statute or ordinance, and, more particularly, that his rights are thus affected by the particular feature of the statute alleged to be in conflict with the constitution.

For example, in Bland v. State, 395 So.2d 164, 166 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981), we cited County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 99 S.Ct. 2213, 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979), for the following general proposition: 'A party has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute only insofar as it has an adverse impact on his own rights; as a general rule, if there is no constitutional defect in the application of a statute to a litigant, he does not have standing to argue that it would be unconstitutional if applied to third parties in hypothetical situations.' In State v. Wilkerson, 54 Ala.App. 104, 305 So.2d 378, 380, cert. denied, 293 Ala. 774, 305 So.2d 382 (1974), in finding that the appellant could not challenge the constitutionality of a statute because he could not show that the statute's unconstitutional feature adversely affected him, we cited the general rule, as follows: "'". . . in criminal prosecution, accused has the right to assert the invalidity of the law, regulation, or rule under which he is being prosecuted, but he must show that his rights are adversely affected by the statute or ordinance, and, more particularly, that his rights are thus affected by the particular feature of the statute alleged to be in conflict with the constitution.