Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; February 28, 2002; Alabama; State Appellate Court
David Hamilton was indicted for misdemeanor driving under the influence (DUI) by the Escambia County grand jury. In March 2001, the prosecutor sought to amend the indictment to charge felony DUI due to Hamilton's three prior DUI convictions, to which Hamilton consented. However, the amended indictment initially named another individual. The State then moved to change the name to Hamilton’s, a motion opposed by him. The circuit court granted the State's request, and Hamilton was convicted of felony DUI.
Following his conviction, the State filed a motion to vacate the judgment, claiming the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The State argued that Hamilton's conviction was void because he was charged with an offense for which he was never properly indicted, and that the circuit court judge had no jurisdiction to enter judgment on a misdemeanor charge. The first indictment, which was for a misdemeanor, vested jurisdiction in the district court, not the circuit court. Citing precedents, the court noted that a circuit court lacks jurisdiction if the indictment alleges only a misdemeanor offense.
The circuit court's actions regarding the felony DUI charge were deemed void due to this jurisdictional issue, and Hamilton contended that his consent to the first amendment validated the proceedings.
The subsequent amendment to the indictment against Hamilton, made despite his objection, is asserted to render the second indictment void. While Hamilton had consented to the amendment, it is established that a defendant cannot waive a jurisdictional defect, which includes subject matter jurisdiction that can be raised at any time. The court's ability to amend an indictment is constrained by procedural rules, specifically Rule 13.5, which prohibits amendments that introduce new or greater offenses not included in the original indictment. Here, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to amend the misdemeanor indictment to a greater offense. Consequently, all circuit court actions regarding the amendment are null and void. The original indictment for driving under the influence remains valid and vested jurisdiction in the district court, unaffected by the void circuit court proceedings. As the trial court's actions were void, there is no judgment to support an appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and vacation of the circuit court's judgment. The court emphasizes that without jurisdiction, a conviction cannot stand, and therefore, no jeopardy is established.
