(a) Any person now serving a prison sentence based on revocation of probation who would have been an eligible offender as defined in Section 15-22-54 at the time of revocation shall be entitled to be resentenced upon petition to the sentencing court. Such petition shall be on a form and filed in the manner prescribed by the Administrative Office of Courts. Petitions shall be considered authorized motions for modification of sentence, assigned a unique identifier by the Administrative Office of Courts, and shall not require payment of a filing fee.
(b) The court shall have jurisdiction to resentence the offender in accordance with the terms of this section, upon a showing of the following:
(1) The petitioner met all requirements of an eligible offender as defined in Section 15-22-54 at the time of revocation.
(2) Probation was thereafter revoked and the petitioner was sentenced to the penitentiary only as a result of administrative violations of probation.
(3) The petitioner has no disciplinary infractions while serving the sentence in the penitentiary.
(4) The petitioner has no pending criminal charges or convictions for a new offense since the time the petitioner was placed on probation.
(c) A successive petition shall not be considered by the trial court unless new grounds are raised in the petition. Any successive petition which is not set for a hearing by the court within 30 days after filing is deemed denied by operation of law.
(Act 2010-753, p. 1905, §2; Act 2011-696, p. 2125, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 2010–2013 · leading case:
State v. Jones, 61 So. 3d 1104 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).
State v. Jones, 61 So. 3d 1104 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).
· cites it 6× “Jones, filed this petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that we direct Judge Robert Earl Wilters to set aside his order denying Jones’s motion to be treated as a “technical” violator under the recent amendment to § 15-22-54.1, Ala.Code 1975. In 1999, Jones was convicted of…”
Gregory Lamar Ballard v. State of Alabama., 85 So. 3d 485 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011).
· cites it 6× “Gregory Lamar Ballard appeals from the denial of his petition for resentencing, which he filed pursuant to § 15-22-54.1, Ala. Code 1975. On September 1, 2010, Ballard filed his petition for resentencing.”
Julio Mantez v. State of Alabama., 83 So. 3d 583 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011).
“This statutory provision, along with § 15-22-54.1, Ala.Code 1975, were amended effective June 14, 2011.”
Kandola v. State, Cr-10-1132 (ala.crim.app. 7-29-2011), 77 So. 3d 1209 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011).
“2010), we held that the denial of a motion made pursuant to § 15-22-54.1, Ala.Code 1975, to be treated as a technical violator is appealable to this Court; therefore, Jones could not use a petition for a writ of mandamus to obtain review of the circuit court’s ruling.”
Maye v. State, 66 So. 3d 283 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “If at some future point Maye believes that he meets the qualifications set out in § 15-22-54.1, Ala.Code 1975, he may file a petition seeking reconsideration of his sentence based on his status as a technical violator under § 15-22-54(d)(1)f.”
Samuel Lashaun Lee v. State of Alabama., 74 So. 3d 101 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011).
· cites it 15× “Samuel Lashaun Lee appeals from the circuit court’s summary denial of his petition seeking resentencing pursuant to § 15-22-54.1, Ala.Code 1975. On July 2, 2010, Lee filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to § 15-22-54.”
Gary Wayne Searcy v. State of Alabama., 77 So. 3d 174 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011).
“Code 1975, and § 15-22-54.1, Ala.Code 1975, are appealable to this Court because those motions are a continuation of the underlying case for resentencing based on newly enacted legislation.”
Feion Judio McQuieter v. State of Alabama., 88 So. 3d 925 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).
· cites it 7× “On June 22, 2010, McQuieter filed a “Petition for Resentencing Pursuant to § 15-22-54.1 (Technical Violation of Probation).”
Reese v. State, 97 So. 3d 184 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “*187 Therefore, Ballard is not eligible to be resentenced under § 15-22-54.1, Ala. Code 1975. Accordingly, the circuit court properly held that it did not have jurisdiction to resentence Ballard.”
State v. Welch, 136 So. 3d 481 (Ala. 2013).
“The issue before the Court of Criminal Appeals in Kandola was whether the defendant was a “technical probation violator” and entitled to take advantage of § 15-22-54.1, Ala. Code.1975. In Ex parte Maxwell, 675 So.”
Ala. Code § 15-22-54.1(a): 2 cases
Samuel Lashaun Lee v. State of Alabama., 74 So. 3d 101 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011).
“Samuel Lashaun Lee appeals from the circuit court’s summary denial of his petition seeking resentencing pursuant to § 15-22-54.1, Ala.Code 1975. On July 2, 2010, Lee filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to § 15-22-54.”
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.