In a case that illustrates the interplay of Alabama’s sentencing laws, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals recently heard an appeal originating in Mobile County. This case, Altonio Spencer v. State of Alabama, explores the proper application of the Habitual Felony Offenders Act and clarifies the Double Jeopardy Clause’s applicability when one conviction is included within another.

In 2017, Altonio Spencer, along with two accomplices, entered a Walgreens located in Mobile, Alabama, after the store was closed. One of the accomplices threatened the employees at gunpoint, enabling Spencer to break into the pharmacy and escape with narcotics and cash. Law enforcement tracked the stolen goods using trackers within the drug containers, which led the police to a nearby residence. There, they found Spencer, along with the narcotics and firearms. Spencer was subsequently charged with pharmacy robbery and first-degree robbery. Spencer was convicted of both charges at trial. Due to Spencer’s past offenses, he received a mandatory life sentence without parole for the pharmacy robbery under Alabama’s Habitual Felony Offender Act, along with an additional 240-month sentence for the first-degree robbery.

Spencer appealed both convictions, arguing that the trial court had erred in admitting certain evidence. Spencer also argued that his convictions were in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, because his first-degree robbery conviction was encompassed by his pharmacy robbery conviction. The Court upheld the evidentiary inclusions, clarifying the trial court’s broad discretion, while also noting the procedural requirements for a timely objection. However, Spencer prevailed on his double jeopardy claim, leading the Court to remand Spencer’s conviction to vacate his first-degree robbery charge and related sentence.

Additionally, Spencer raised two arguments relating to his sentencing. First, Spencer asserted that the sentencing laws had been improperly applied, citing §13A-8-52(b) of the Alabama Code, which provides the penalties for pharmacy robbery. On review, the Court found that the trial court did not misapply sentencing laws, as Spencer’s prior felony convictions allowed for the application of the Habitual Felony Offender Act for sentencing. Therefore, his sentence for life imprisonment without parole was appropriate. Additionally, Spencer argued that the trial court had failed to conduct a competency evaluation before sentencing. Although Spencer alleged doubts about his competency, the Court found insufficient evidence to support this contention, and noted that the issue had not been adequately preserved for appeal. Accordingly, the sentence was affirmed in this respect.

The case of Altonio Spencer v. State of Alabama demonstrates several important concepts related to criminal procedure and sentencing. While Spencer’s life sentence was ultimately upheld, his success on his double jeopardy claim illustrates how this doctrine applies to offenses included within other convictions. Furthermore, his appeal clarifies the proper application of Alabama’s sentencing laws, highlighting how the Habitual Felony Offender Act’s can supersede alternative statutory guidelines.

If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case, contact Joe Ingram or Joe Ingram Law LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief Get Results.