Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 13A-4-5 (2026)
Consummation of Object Offense Not Defense to Prosecution; Multiple Convictions on Basis of Same Course of Conduct.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
(a) It is no defense to a prosecution for criminal solicitation, Section 13A-4-1, attempt, Section 13A-4-2, or criminal conspiracy, Section 13A-4-3, that the offense solicited, attempted or conspired was actually committed.
(b) A person may not be convicted on the basis of the same course of conduct of both the actual commission of an offense and:
(1) An attempt to commit the offense; or
(2) Criminal solicitation of the offense; or
(3) Criminal conspiracy of the offense.
(c) A person may not be convicted of more than one of the offenses defined in Sections 13A-4-1, 13A-4-2 and 13A-4-3 for a single course of conduct designed to commit or to cause the commission of the same crime.
(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §1020.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1985–2010 · leading case: Chapman v. State, 64 So. 3d 1120 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009).
Chapman v. State, 64 So. 3d 1120 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009). “I also disagree with the majority’s holding that these two convictions violate the merger principle codified in § 13A-4-5, Ala. Code 1975. The facts relevant to the disposition of these issues are as follows.”
Goodwin v. State, 644 So. 2d 1269 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993). “Dewey and Daren contend that § 13A-4-5, Code of Alabama 1975, prohibits their convictions both for conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree and for robbery in the first degree.”
State v. Hancock, 530 N.E.2d 106 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). “” Ala.Code § 13A-4-5(c) (1982). “By virtue of the definition of “conviction” this means that prosecution may be had for both offenses in the same trial (by separate counts) or separately.”
Harris v. State, 580 So. 2d 33 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990). “"(b) The principles of liability and defenses for an attempt to commit a controlled substance crime are the same as those specified in sections 13A-4-2(b) through (c), and in section 13A-4-5.”
Beavers v. State, 627 So. 2d 1021 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). ““(b) The principles of liability and defenses for criminal conspiracy to commit a controlled substance crime are the same as those specified in sections 13A-4-3(b) through (f), section 13A-4-4, and section 13A-4-5.” Section 13A-4-3(a), states: “(a) A person is guilty of criminal…”
State v. L.N.A., 811 So. 2d 637 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001). ““ ‘(b) The principles of liability and defenses for criminal solicitation to commit a controlled substance crime are the same as those specified in Code of Alabama 1975, § 13A-4-l(b)(e), and § 13A-4-5. “ ‘(c) Criminal solicitation to commit a controlled substance crime shall be…”
Rhodes v. State, 686 So. 2d 1288 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996). ““(b) The principles of liability and defenses for an attempt to commit controlled substance crime are the same as those specified in Sections 13A-4-2(b) through (c), and in Section 13A-4-5. “(c) An attempt to commit a controlled substance crime shall be punished the same as the…”
Mack v. State, 536 So. 2d 971 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988). ““(b) The principles of liability and defenses for an attempt to commit a controlled substance crime are the same as those specified in sections 13A-4-2(b) through (c), and in section 13A-4-5. “(c) An attempt to commit a controlled substance crime shall be punished the same as…”
Southerland v. State, 471 So. 2d 522 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985). “Section 13A-4-5 states in part: “(a) It is no defense to a prosecution for criminal solicitation, section 13A-4-1, attempt, section 13A-4-2, or criminal conspiracy, section 13A-4-3, that the offense solicited, attempted or conspired was actually committed.”
Chapman v. State, 64 So. 3d 1133 (Ala. 2010). “2 “Furthermore, § 13A-4-5(b), Ala. Code 1975, provides that a defendant may not be convicted of both the actual commission of an offense and of an attempt to commit the offense when those convictions are based on the same course of conduct.”
State v. LNA, 811 So. 2d 637 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001). “"`(b) The principles of liability and defenses for criminal solicitation to commit a controlled substance crime are the same as those specified in Code of Alabama 1975, § 13A-4-1(b)(e), and § 13A-4-5. "`(c) Criminal solicitation to commit a controlled substance crime shall be…”
— Ala. Code § 13A-4-5(b) — 2 cases
Chapman v. State, 64 So. 3d 1120 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009). “I also disagree with the majority’s holding that these two convictions violate the merger principle codified in § 13A-4-5, Ala. Code 1975. The facts relevant to the disposition of these issues are as follows.”
Chapman v. State, 64 So. 3d 1133 (Ala. 2010). “2 “Furthermore, § 13A-4-5(b), Ala. Code 1975, provides that a defendant may not be convicted of both the actual commission of an offense and of an attempt to commit the offense when those convictions are based on the same course of conduct.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-4-5(b)(1) — 1 case
Chapman v. State, 64 So. 3d 1120 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009). “I also disagree with the majority’s holding that these two convictions violate the merger principle codified in § 13A-4-5, Ala. Code 1975. The facts relevant to the disposition of these issues are as follows.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-4-5(b)(2) — 1 case
Chapman v. State, 64 So. 3d 1120 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009). “I also disagree with the majority’s holding that these two convictions violate the merger principle codified in § 13A-4-5, Ala. Code 1975. The facts relevant to the disposition of these issues are as follows.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-4-5(b)(3) — 2 cases
Goodwin v. State, 644 So. 2d 1269 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993). “Dewey and Daren contend that § 13A-4-5, Code of Alabama 1975, prohibits their convictions both for conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree and for robbery in the first degree.”
Chapman v. State, 64 So. 3d 1120 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009). “I also disagree with the majority’s holding that these two convictions violate the merger principle codified in § 13A-4-5, Ala. Code 1975. The facts relevant to the disposition of these issues are as follows.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-4-5(c) — 1 case
State v. Hancock, 530 N.E.2d 106 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). “” Ala.Code § 13A-4-5(c) (1982). “By virtue of the definition of “conviction” this means that prosecution may be had for both offenses in the same trial (by separate counts) or separately.”
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.