(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 22, Title 15, or any other provision of law, with respect to any person who is found to have violated Section 13A-12-231, adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence shall not be suspended, deferred, or withheld, nor shall such person be eligible for any type of parole, probation, work release, supervised intensive restitution program, release because of deduction from sentence for good behavior under corrections incentive time act or any other program, furlough, pass, leave, or any other type of early, conditional, or temporary release program, nor shall such person be permitted to leave the penitentiary for any reason whatsoever except for necessary court appearances and for necessary medical treatment, prior to serving the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment prescribed in this article or 15 years, whichever is less. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed in any way to render any inmate eligible for parole, probation, suspended sentence, furlough, pass, leave, or any type or early, conditional, or temporary release program of any type to which the inmate is not otherwise eligible under other provision of law. Nor shall anything in this section be construed to render any person sentenced to life imprisonment without parole under this or any other act eligible for parole, probation, suspended sentence, furlough, pass, leave, or any type of early, conditional, or temporary release program at any time.
(b) The prosecuting attorney may move the sentencing court to reduce or suspend the sentence of any person who is convicted of a violation of Section 13A-12-231, except where the sentence is life imprisonment without parole, and who provides substantial assistance in the arrest, or in the conviction of any of his accomplices, accessories, coconspirators, or principals. The arresting agency shall be given an opportunity to be heard in aggravation or mitigation in reference to any such motion. Upon good cause shown, the motion may be filed and heard in camera. The judge hearing the motion may reduce or suspend the sentence if he finds that the defendant rendered such substantial assistance. Under no circumstances may the judge reduce or suspend the sentence except upon motion of the prosecuting attorney.
(Acts 1980, No. 80-587, p. 926; Acts 1986, No. 86-534, p. 1035, §2; Acts 1987, No. 87-708, p. 1246, §3; Code 1975, §20-2-81; Acts 1988, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 88-918, p. 512, §2(5).)
Notes of Decisions
Pierson v. State, 677 So. 2d 242 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994).
· cites it 5× “I think that § 13A-12-284 is an express exception to the terms of the Demand Reduction Assessment Act in the same way that subsection (b) of § 13A-12-232, Ala.Code 1975, is an express exception to the terms of the statute setting minimum mandatory sentences for drug trafficking.”
Sides v. State, 575 So. 2d 1232 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991).
· cites it 3× “Relying on § 20-2-81(b), Code of Alabama 1975 (now codified in § 13A-12-232(b)), this court denied the petition, stating that mandamus was not the correct action to bring because the appellant had not as yet been found guilty.”
Alabama Bd. of Pardons & Paroles v. Smith, 25 So. 3d 1198 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009).
· cites it 5× “” Further, with regard to eligibility for parole on trafficking offenses, § 13A-12-232, Ala.Code 1975, specifically provides: “(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 22, Title 15, or any other provision of law, with respect to any person who is found to have violated…”
Hagedorn v. State, 570 So. 2d 780 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990).
“Defense counsel even stated in the record, “It’s my understanding that the state is not going to make a motion to the court under § 13A-12-232, paragraph B.” As the State orally argued, the appellant breached his part of the contract he had with the police.”
Drewry v. State, 566 So. 2d 248 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “Section 20-2-81 was transferred to Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-12-232, effective September 30, 1988.”
White v. State, 832 So. 2d 676 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “First, White contends that the trial court erred by not ruling on the constitutionality of § 13A-12-232(b), Ala.Code 1975, as to the facts in this case.”
Chandler v. State, 741 So. 2d 450 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999).
· cites it 3× “The written plea agreement further provided that upon the state’s agreement before sentencing that Chandler had provided law enforcement authorities with “substantial assistance” in making other drug cases, the state would recommend that the trial court waive the mandatory…”
Scruggs v. State, 599 So. 2d 97 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992).
“Furthermore, at the same time, the legislature amended § 20-2-81(a) (transferred to § 13A-12-232(a) in September 1988) to read as follows: “Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 22, Title 15, or any other provision of law, with respect to any person who is found to have…”
Ala. Code § 13A-12-232(a): 4 cases
Pierson v. State, 677 So. 2d 242 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994).
“I think that § 13A-12-284 is an express exception to the terms of the Demand Reduction Assessment Act in the same way that subsection (b) of § 13A-12-232, Ala.Code 1975, is an express exception to the terms of the statute setting minimum mandatory sentences for drug trafficking.”
Alabama Bd. of Pardons & Paroles v. Smith, 25 So. 3d 1198 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009).
“” Further, with regard to eligibility for parole on trafficking offenses, § 13A-12-232, Ala.Code 1975, specifically provides: “(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 22, Title 15, or any other provision of law, with respect to any person who is found to have violated…”
Scruggs v. State, 599 So. 2d 97 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992).
“Furthermore, at the same time, the legislature amended § 20-2-81(a) (transferred to § 13A-12-232(a) in September 1988) to read as follows: “Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 22, Title 15, or any other provision of law, with respect to any person who is found to have…”
Chandler v. State, 741 So. 2d 450 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999).
“The written plea agreement further provided that upon the state’s agreement before sentencing that Chandler had provided law enforcement authorities with “substantial assistance” in making other drug cases, the state would recommend that the trial court waive the mandatory…”
Ala. Code § 13A-12-232(b): 5 cases
Sides v. State, 575 So. 2d 1232 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991).
“Relying on § 20-2-81(b), Code of Alabama 1975 (now codified in § 13A-12-232(b)), this court denied the petition, stating that mandamus was not the correct action to bring because the appellant had not as yet been found guilty.”
Pierson v. State, 677 So. 2d 242 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994).
“I think that § 13A-12-284 is an express exception to the terms of the Demand Reduction Assessment Act in the same way that subsection (b) of § 13A-12-232, Ala.Code 1975, is an express exception to the terms of the statute setting minimum mandatory sentences for drug trafficking.”
White v. State, 832 So. 2d 676 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001).
“First, White contends that the trial court erred by not ruling on the constitutionality of § 13A-12-232(b), Ala.Code 1975, as to the facts in this case.”
Chandler v. State, 741 So. 2d 450 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999).
“The written plea agreement further provided that upon the state’s agreement before sentencing that Chandler had provided law enforcement authorities with “substantial assistance” in making other drug cases, the state would recommend that the trial court waive the mandatory…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.