Mr. Joseph A. Ingram, of Bradford Ingram & Ladner, LLP, has been retained to represent Mr. J.D. Simmons in the Northern District of Alabama for allegedly receiving or distribution of child pornography under Title 18. U.S.C. 2252(a)(2), and Title 18 U.S.C. 2252A(5)(a), possession of any other image that contains an image of child pornography.   

Question of whether or not the Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it concluded that Defendant’s motion for sentence modification was not properly before the court because it was not a claim in the Rule 32 motion, but was made in a separate motion.

In 1987, the Defendant was convicted of 1st degree theft of property and sentenced to life as a habitual offender. In 2010, Defendant filed his 2nd petition of post-conviction relief under Rule 32. Defendant stated that the state failed to provide notice that it intended to proceed under the Habitual Felony Offender Act. State filed motion to dismiss. Defendant filed a motion to amend the Rule 32 petition and motion for sentence modification. Trial Court denied Rule 32 and motion for sentence modification. Defendant appealed and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Defendant petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari review.

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in concluding that the claim was not proper for appellate review.

Reversed.