E-Filed 03/08/2013 @ 05:06:21 PM Honorable D. Scott Mitchell Clerk Of The Court CR-12-0229 In the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama • AMY BISHOP ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALABAMIA, Appellee. • On Appeal from the Circuit Court of Madison County (CC-11-1131) BRIEF OF APPELLEE Luther Strange Attorney General Michael G. Dean Assistant Attorney General Counsel of Record* Office of the Attorney General Criminal Appeals Division P.O. Box 300152 501 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36130-0152 (334)242-7300; (334)353-0415* Fax: (334)242-2848 [email protected] STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT The State does not request oral argument. See A l a. R. App. P. 34(a)(3). i TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT i TABLE OF CONTENTS ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES v STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 4 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS 5 STANDARDS OF REVIEW 12 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 14 ARGUMENT 17 I. Anderson Waived Her Right To Appeal As Part Of Her Plea Agreements With The State, And This Court Should Dismiss Her Appeal 17 II. Anderson Failed To Preserve Her Claims For Appellate Review 20 III. Anderson's Challenges To The Voluntariness Of Her Guilty Pleas Are Meritless 22 A. Anderson's Claim That Her Guilty Pleas Were Rendered Involuntary Because of the Trial Court's Failure to Inform Her of the Correct Minimum Potential Sentence for the Attempted Murder Charges During the Guilty Plea Colloquy Is Meritless 25 1. The t r i al court's use and acceptance of the Ireland form satisfied the requirements of Rule 14.4(a) (1) (ii) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure 2 6 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS - (continued) 2. Despite the t r i al court's misstatement during the colloquy, Anderson knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty 31 B. Anderson's Claim That Her Guilty Plea Was Rendered Involuntary Because the Trial Court Failed to Inform Her That She Was Waiving the Right to Appeal by Pleading Guilty Is Meritless 40 C. Anderson's Claim That Her Guilty Pleas Were Rendered Involuntary by the Trial Court's Alleged Failure to Give Her an Opportunity to Comment on Her Attorneys' Performance Is Meritless 42 D. Anderson's Claim That Her Guilty Pleas Were Rendered Involuntary by the Trial Court's Alleged Failure to Determine That She Understood the Nature and the Material Elements of the Charges against Her Is Meritless 44 E. Anderson's Claim That Her Guilty Plea to the Capital Murder Charge Was Rendered Involuntary Because She Was Required to Proceed to Trial on That Charge Despite Being Told That She Was Waiving Her Right to a Trial by Pleading Guilty Is Meritless 48 F. Anderson's Claims That Her Guilty Pleas Were Rendered Involuntary Because the Trial Court Failed to Inform Her That She Had the Right to Personally Confront the Witnesses Against Her and That She Had the Right to Have the A id of Compulsory Process in Securing the Attendance of Any Witnesses That She Wanted to Testify Are Meritless 49 i ii TABLE OF CONTENTS - (continued) G. Anderson Is Simply Not Entitled to a Reversal Based on Her Challenges to the Voluntariness of Her Guilty Pleas 52 IV. Anderson's Claim That The Trial Court Exceeded Its Authority When It Sentenced Her Because It Did Not Give Her Information About Her Right To Appeal Is Meritless 54 CONCLUSION 57 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 58 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Alderman v. State, 615 So. 2d 640 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992) 31 Bank of Anniston v. Farmers & Merchants State Bank of Krum, Tex., 507 So. 2d 927 (Ala. 1987) 39-40 Brown v. State, 695 So. 2d 153 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996) 29-30, 41, 43, 45, 51 Brown v. State^ 705 So. 2d 871 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997) 21 Cashin v. State, 428 So. 2d 179 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982) 31 Clemons v. State, 542 So. 2d 331 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989) 33 Cochran v. State, CR-10-0516, 2012 WL 2481649 (Ala. Crim. App. June 29, 2012) 46 Davis v. State^ 348 So. 2d 844 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977) 26 Dingler v. State, 408 So. 2d 530 (Ala. 1981) 32 Ex parte Coulliette, 857 So. 2d 793 (Ala. 2003) 12, 21 Ex parte Sorsby, 12 So. 3d 139 (Ala. 2007) 12, 18-19 Gordon v. State, 692 So. 2d 871 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996) 33 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - (continued) Cases - (continued) Handley v. State, 686 So. 2d 540 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996) (on return to remand) 33 H i ll v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S. Ct. 366 (1985) 12, 31 Ireland v. State, 4 7 A l a. App. 65, 250 So. 2d 602 (1971) 25 McCary v. State, 93 So. 3d 1002 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011) 33 McClaren v. State, 500 So. 2d 1325 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986) 33 McDougal v. State, 526 So. 2d 897 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988) 36-37, 39-40, 42, 52 Nicks v. State, 783 So. 2d 895 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999) 46-47 North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160 (1970) 35 Peoples v. State, 651 So. 2d 1125 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994) 33-35 Pitts v. United States, 763 F.2d 197 (6th C i r. 1985) 35 Pritchett v. State, 686 So. 2d 1300 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996) 32, 35-36 Riley v. State, 892 So. 2d 471 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004) 30, 33 Sanders v. State, 414 So. 2d 482 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982) 53 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - (continued) Cases - (continued) Shouldis v. State, 953 So. 2d 1275 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) 21 Trice v. State, 601 So. 2d 180 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992) 31-35 Twyman v. State^ 300 So. 2d 124 (Ala. 1974) 26, 30 United States v. O'Donnell, 539 F.2d 1233 (9th C i r. 1976) 32 Waddle v. State, 784 So. 2d 367 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000) 26, 29, 31, 41, 43, 45, 51 Watson v. State, 808 So. 2d 77 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001) 19-20 White v. State, 4 So. 3d 1208 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008) 33 White v. State, 888 So. 2d 1288 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004) 33 Williams v. Smithy 591 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. 1979) 34-35 Statutes Code of Alabama (1975) § 13A-4-2 1 § 13A-4-2 (d) (1) 27 § 13A-5-6(a) 27 § 13A-5-6 (a) (4) 27 v ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - (continued) Statutes - (continued) § 13A-5-40(a) (10) 1 § 13A-5-42 2, 49 § 13A-6-2 1 Rules Ala. R. App. P. 34(a) (3) i Ala. R. Crim. P. 14.4(a) 4, 14-15, 17, 22-23, 26, 31, 52-53 14.4(a) (1) (i) 44-45 14. 4 (a) (1) (ii) 26, 29, 39 14. 4 (a) (1) (vi) 49-52 14. 4 (a) (1) (viii) 40-41 14.4 (a) (1-2) 26 14.4(a) (3) 42-43 14.4(d) 26, 29, 31, 41, 43, 45, 51 14.4(e) 53 26.9(b) (4) 15-17, 54-55 26.9 (b) (4) ( i - i i) 13 vi ii STATEMENT OF THE CASE Amy Bishop Anderson appeals from her guilty plea convictions of one count of capital murder and three counts of attempted murder and her resulting sentences of l i fe imprisonment without the p o s s i b i l i ty of parole (for the capital murder conviction) and l i fe imprisonment (for each of her attempted murder convictions) . See (C. 11-12, 676, 685; R. 162, 167; Supp. R. 1, 8-9) . Madison County Circuit Court Judge D. Alan Mann presided over Anderson's guilty plea, t r i a l, and sentencing proceedings. See (C. 1; R. 1; Supp. R. 1). On March 11, 2011, the Madison County Grand Jury indicted Anderson f or one count of capital murder based on the intentional murders of three people pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct in violation of § 13A-5- 40(a)(10) of the Code of Alabama, and three counts of attempted murder in violation of §§ 13A-4-2 and 13A-6-2 of the Code of Alabama. (C. 2, 15-17) On September 22, 2011, Anderson waived arraignment and pleaded not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.1 (C. 416) 1 The waiver of arraignment form indicates that Anderson only pleaded not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. (C. 416) But the t r i al court stated during 1