TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hester v. State

William S. Hester v. State.

Hester v. State, 597 So. 2d 1307 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 17, 1992
Docket
No. CR 90-1738
Judges
Patterson
Citations
597 So. 2d 13071992 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 191992 WL 21029

Opinion — Patterson

William S. Hester, the appellant, was convicted of the unlawful distribution of a controlled substance, cocaine, a violation of § 13A-12-211 , Code of Alabama 1975. He was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment, under the enhancement statutes, § 13A-12-250 and -270, and was ordered to pay a $2,500 fine, and $50 to the victims' compensation fund. On this appeal, he presents three issues for review; however, we find it necessary to address only his first issue at this time.

Hester contends that the trial court erred when it took judicial notice of the facts that this crime occurred within three miles of a school and within three miles of a public housing project. He additionally argues that whether the "J.W. Stewart Headstart" is a school for purposes of the enhancement statute and whether the "Sixth Street Housing Project" is a "public housing project owned by a housing authority" are matters that are not "well established and authoritatively settled." *Page 1308

At the sentencing hearing, the state asked that Hester's sentence be enhanced under the provisions of §§ 13A-12-250 and -270. The state presented no evidence other than the district attorney's testimony that the sale occurred "right across Tuscaloosa Avenue from the J.W. Stewart Headstart, and one block from the Sixth Street Housing Project." The trial court took judicial notice of the locations "as to both [the] school and the public housing project." The only evidence that Hester sold cocaine within a three-mile radius of a school or a public housing project came from the district attorney. In view of the holding of our supreme court in Ex parte Johnson , 597 So.2d 1305 (Ala. 1991), we hold that the state failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the sale occurred within a three-mile radius of a school or a public housing project. In light of these facts, we must remand this cause to the circuit court so that it may conduct a new sentencing hearing.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

All Judges concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1992: 21993: 41995: 11998: 119922026peak 1993 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Germany v. State630 So. 2d 132 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)
  2. Ex Parte Mutrie658 So. 2d 347 (Ala. 1993)
  3. Cunny v. State629 So. 2d 693 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)
  4. Pettway v. State624 So. 2d 696 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)
  5. Burks v. State611 So. 2d 487 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)
  6. Hester v. State608 So. 2d 420 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)

Most recent

  1. Frasier v. State766 So. 2d 181 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998)
  2. Thomas v. State667 So. 2d 150 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995)
  3. Germany v. State630 So. 2d 132 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)
  4. Ex Parte Mutrie658 So. 2d 347 (Ala. 1993)
  5. Pettway v. State624 So. 2d 696 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)
  6. Cunny v. State629 So. 2d 693 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Ex Parte Johnson, 597 So. 2d 1305 (Ala. 1991) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list