Childers v. State

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court reviewed the State's petition for certiorari concerning whether the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision in Childers conflicted with Ex parte Cole. The court held that the original first-degree robbery indictment did not allege that Childers was aided by another person, an essential element of second-degree robbery, and therefore did not confer jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea to that offense. The court quashed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

Holdings

1. The Court of Criminal Appeals' decision did not conflict with Ex parte Cole; the State's certiorari writ was therefore quashed as improvidently granted.
2. An indictment charging first-degree robbery without alleging that the defendant was aided by another person actually present does not charge second-degree robbery as a lesser-included offense and does not confer subject-matter jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea to second-degree robbery.
3. Whether an offense is lesser-included depends on the statutory and indictment allegations, not merely on evidence presented to the grand jury or admissions made during a guilty-plea colloquy.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals' decision reversing dismissal of Childers's Rule 32 petition conflicted with Ex parte Cole.
2. Whether an indictment charging first-degree robbery, but lacking an allegation that the defendant was aided by another person actually present, conferred subject-matter jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea to second-degree robbery.
3. Whether a defendant's guilty plea and admission during the plea colloquy can informally amend an indictment to add a distinct offense that was not encompassed by the original indictment as a lesser-included offense.

Disposition

quashed