descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Owens v. State

Citations: 565 So. 2d 1283; 1990 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 993; 1990 WL 124122Docket: 3 Div. 229

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; August 3, 1990; Alabama; State Appellate Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
The appellant was convicted of third-degree criminal trespass under Code of Alabama § 13A-7-4 and sentenced to 90 days in county jail, with 83 days suspended, and placed on one year of unsupervised probation, along with a $100 fine plus court costs. The appellant contended that there was insufficient evidence for the trespass conviction, which requires that a person unlawfully enters or remains on premises without license, invitation, or privilege as defined in § 13A-7-1(4).

Evidence presented by the State established that the appellant approached the property owner to discuss purchasing her property, which included a gravel pit. After documenting their conversation, the appellant began moving equipment onto the property without permission. The owner testified that upon her return after three weeks, she found the appellant's equipment and that she had not agreed to let him use the land. Despite being told to leave, the appellant refused, citing his belief that he had a right to be there due to the discussions and a labor dispute.

The State argued that any privilege the appellant had to be on the property was revoked when the owner explicitly instructed him to stay off. The jury found sufficient evidence to support the conviction, despite conflicting testimonies.

Additionally, the appellant claimed that his sentence exceeded the statutory limit for criminal trespass, which should not exceed 30 days. The State agreed with this assertion. Consequently, the court affirmed the conviction but remanded the case for resentencing in accordance with the appropriate statutory guidelines. All judges concurred in the decision.