(In re: Michael Carvese Williams v. State of Alabama) (2023)

WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION.

I concur with the Court's decision to deny Michael Carvese Williams's petition as to Ground A, regarding the applicability of § 15-25-31, Ala. Code 1975. I dissent, however, from the Court's decision to deny Williams's petition as to Ground B, regarding the admissibility of certain evidence.

I concur in denying certiorari review of petitioner Michael Carvese Williams's assertion in Ground A that the prohibition against ex post facto laws was violated by the application of the version of § 15-25-31, Ala. Code 1975, in effect at the time of his trial rather than the version in effect at the time of the offenses. However, I would grant certiorari review as to Williams's assertions in Ground B of the petition because of the reasons stated in Judge Cole's dissent in Williams v. State, [Ms. CR-2022-0543, Feb. 10, 2023] ____ So. 3d ____ (Ala. Crim. App. 2023). Although evidence of prior conduct under Rule 404(b), Ala. R. Evid., is admissible in limited circumstances, such evidence is still subject to other rules in the Alabama Rules of Evidence, including the rules prohibiting hearsay evidence.

WISE, Justice.

Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Bryan, Sellers, and Mitchell, JJ., concur. Mendheim, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with opinion, which Stewart, J., joins. Cook, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with opinion.