text:
    Billy Wes HOWELL v. Patricia DANTONE (Howell).
    2110290.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    Dec. 7, 2012.

      Stewart G. Springer of Springer Law Firm, L.L.C., Birmingham, for appellant.
   PITTMAN, Judge.

Billy Wes Howell (“the father”) appeals from a judgment ordering him to be equally responsible, along with Patricia Dantone (Howell) (“the mother”), for the postminority educational expenses of Raven Howell, the parties’ daughter (“the daughter”). We reverse and remand.

Factual and Procedural Background

During the parties’ marriage, the mother’s three children from a previous marriage (two daughters and a son) and the father’s son from a previous marriage lived with them. The parties’ daughter was born in 1991. The parties were divorced by the Jefferson Circuit Court in August 1994, when the daughter was less than three years old. The divorce judgment incorporated the parties’ agreement that the mother would have physical custody of the daughter and the father would have standard visitation and pay child support of $850 per month. In 1995, the father filed a second complaint for a divorce, alleging that after the entry of the 1994 divorce judgment the parties had reconciled and had lived together as husband and wife until they separated in July 1995. The mother moved to dismiss the complaint, denying that the parties had reconciled and resumed their marital relationship. In an interlocutory order dated January 2, 1996, the Jefferson Circuit Court determined that after the first divorce the parties had reconciled and had thereafter lived in a common-law marriage. The following findings of fact were included in the order:

“The Court finds that from the evidence presented, the parties signed a joint tax return for the year 1994, as husband and wife, and [the mother] was kept on [the father’s] group health insurance policy following the August 1994 [judgment]. The evidence indicates that on April 15, 1995, the [mother] was designated as the spouse of the [father] on a Qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity with the Carpenters Local # 127 Pension Trust Fund. Further the evidence indicates that in June of 1995, $11,000.00 dollars from the pension fund was withdrawn. The [father] testified he gave all the money to the [mother]. The [mother] admitted to using a substantial amount of the funds to pay off her van and to purchase a swimming pool. Furthermore, the [father] testified that he deposited the majority of his paycheck into the [mother’s] account, up until the parties’ separation on July 10,1995. Although the [mother] is not employed and has no apparent means of support, she has not sought to enforce the divorce [judgment] dated August 4,1994.
“The [father] testified that he agreed to the quick divorce, because the [mother] had accused him of molesting his step daughter and insisted that he agree to the terms of the divorce to prevent the Department of Human Resources (DHR) from removing the step daughter as well as the parties’ child from the home. The [father] further testified that the [mother] later admitted that the divorce was a sham and that they would continue to live together as man and wife. The [mother] denied this testimony.
“While the testimony of the parties is in direct contradiction, the court finds that the testimony of the [father] is the most credible. The court therefore finds that there was more than a mere reunification after a divorce in this situation. The evidence was sufficient to establish a common-law marriage relation between the parties. See generally, Skipworth v. Skipworth, 360 So.2d 975 (Ala.1978); Copeland v. Richardson, 551 So.2d 353 (Ala.1989); and Walton v. Walton, 409 So.2d 858 (Ala.Civ.App.[1982]).”

On November 21, 1996, the Jefferson Circuit Court divorced the parties for the second time, awarded physical custody of the daughter to the mother, and ordered the father to pay child support of $323.70 per month. The mother and the daughter moved to Chilton County in 2000. The father continued to reside in Jefferson County.

In September 2009, the mother filed in the Chilton Circuit Court a petition to modify the divorce judgment, alleging that the daughter intended to attend college and seeking postminority educational support from the father. On July 29, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on the mother’s petition.

At the time of the hearing, the daughter had completed her freshman year at Troy University, had maintained a 4.0 grade-point average, and had been named to the chancellor’s list. She plans to major in biology and to become a nurse. The mother testified that the expenses of the daughter’s freshman year had been paid from the following sources: a Pell grant, a student loan, a scholarship, the daughter’s part-time job at a fast-food restaurant, and contributions from the mother and a maternal aunt. The maternal aunt stated that she had paid for the daughter’s textbooks and half the college tuition that the daughter “[could not] raise and that the Pell grants [did not] cover.” The mother did not state the amount of the daughter’s student loan or scholarship, and she was unsure as to the amount of the Pell grant. She presented an invoice indicating that the costs, exclusive of textbooks, for the first semester of the daughter’s sophomore year beginning in the fall of 2011 would be $7,574.85.

The mother testified that she was disabled as the result of a brain tumor that had been diagnosed nine years earlier and that had affected her vision. Her income consists of disability payments of $577 per month and child-support payments of $323.70 per month. She acknowledged that the father had regularly made all his child-support payments until July 2011, five weeks before trial.

The mother stated that the father had visited the daughter only once after the divorce, when the daughter was 4 or 5 years old, and that, until the hearing in this case, the father and the daughter had not seen each other for 15 years. The mother denied that she had alienated or had attempted to alienate the daughter from the father, insisting that she had always encouraged a relationship between the two and that she had regularly sent the daughter’s report cards and photographs of the daughter to the father. The mother testified that, when the daughter was 16 years old, the daughter had telephoned the father to discuss her plans to attend college.

On cross-examination, the mother acknowledged that she had accused the father of molesting her two daughters by a previous marriage and that her accusation had precipitated the parties’ first divorce in 1994. She denied that the parties had reconciled or lived together as husband and wife after the first divorce, and, when confronted with the fact that the Jefferson Circuit Court had found otherwise and had granted the parties a second divorce, the mother stated that she “never could understand” the reason why a second divorce was necessary.

The daughter testified that her college expenses, including textbooks, totaled $7,600 per semester and that she had been awarded a Pell grant of $2,700 per semester. The daughter stated that she had applied for scholarships, but she did not state whether she had received any scholarships. She testified that she had wanted to have a relationship with her father and had tried on several occasions, beginning when she was about 12 years old, to speak to the father, but, she said, whenever she had dialed the father’s telephone number and identified herself to her paternal grandmother, who had answered the calls, the paternal grandmother had hung up the telephone. She explained that she had reached her father one time when the paternal grandmother had not answered the telephone and that he had given her his cellular-telephone number. The daughter stated that she had telephoned the father during her freshman year in college to ask for $200 and that the father had refused her request. She admitted that, following a previous hearing in this ease, she had sent “mean” text messages to her father because, she said, she was “mad at him” for not helping her with college expenses.

At the time of the hearing, the father was 54 years old and had recently been laid off from his employment as a carpenter with a construction company, where he had been earning $19.50 per hour when he worked. He stated that his gross income in 2010 had been $36,000 and that he had never earned more than $40,000 annually in his 31 years of construction work. He had applied for but had not yet received unemployment-compensation benefits. He owns no real estate, has a savings account containing $25 and a checking account containing $650, and lives with his 75-year-old mother in a house his mother owns. He pays his mother $600 per month “to go toward bills and food,” and he pays for his health-insurance coverage pursuant to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1161-1169. He has a 401(k) retirement savings account containing approximately $50,000, but, he said, he cannot withdraw funds from that account without a penalty.

The father testified that he had not looked for other work but had spent the five weeks since his layoff fixing up his mother’s house. He acknowledged that he would have to look for other employment, but, he said, he did not think he could handle construction work anymore because he had pain in his back, knees, and elbow and is “short-winded a little bit.”

The father stated that, after the parties’ divorce, he had tried to see the daughter, but, he said, the mother had alienated the daughter from him and had refused to let him speak with the daughter when he had telephoned. He testified that he had never behaved inappropriately with his stepdaughters and that the mother’s allegations of sexual abuse were untrue, as the Jefferson Circuit Court had found. The father stated that he had wanted a relationship -with the daughter, but, he said, he had been traumatized by the mother’s sexual abuse allegations and had been fearful of “what he might be accused of next” if he tried to pursue a relationship with the daughter. He acknowledged that he had never sought legal assistance in establishing a relationship with the daughter.

The father’s 31-year-old son by a previous marriage, who had lived with the parties when he was between the ages of 10 and 18, confirmed the father’s testimony that the mother had alienated the daughter from the father. He said that the father had been a good parent and that the mother had been an abusive stepparent who had beat him and had “brushed” his throat with laundry detergent when he told a lie or said a bad word, had asked him to bring her sweet tea while she lay naked in the bathtub, and had locked all the children out of the house on hot summer days while she took a nap inside and the children shot BB-gun pellets at each other outside.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court entered the following judgment:

“Upon hearing the testimony on postmi-nority support by the father, this court finds (1) postminority support is granted for [the] parties’ child, Raven Howell, [and] (2) [the] parties are to equally be responsible for the tuition, books, board, food, transportation, [and] medical insurance, after applying any scholarships. [The] child is to maintain a B average in order to maintain the benefit of this postminority order.”

The father filed a postjudgment motion on August 28, 2011. On September 1, 2011, the trial court set that motion for a hearing on November 7, 2011. The trial court failed to rule on the motion, and it was, therefore, denied by operation of law on November 28, 2011, pursuant to Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P. The father timely appealed on December 19, 2011.

Standard of Review

“ ‘The general principles concerning child support are “equally applicable to a [proceeding] for post-minority college support.” Child support is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its judgment will not be reversed, absent a showing that it abused its discretion. Additionally, where the evidence is presented ore tenus in a child support case, the trial court’s judgment is presumed correct.’ ”

Jacklin v. Austin, [Ms. 2110064, September 28, 2012] - So.3d -, - (Ala.Civ.App.2012) (quoting Wells v. Wells, 648 So.2d 617, 619 (Ala.Civ.App.1994), quoting in turn Berry v. Berry, 579 So.2d 654, 656 (Ala.Civ.App.1991)).

Discussion

The father argues that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay postmi-nority educational support because, he says, (a) he and the daughter had not seen or spoken to each other in 15 years and he had not been consulted about her educational plans, (b) he does not have sufficient earnings, earning capacity, or assets to pay postminority educational expenses without undue hardship, (c) the trial court’s judgment does not specify the amount of his postminority-support obligation or take into account grants or aid the daughter may be receiving, and (d) the trial court’s judgment does not condition his support obligation upon the daughter’s maintaining full-time-student status.

In Ex parte Bayliss, 550 So.2d 986 (Ala.1989), our supreme court held that the trial court has discretion whether to order postminority support at all and that, in exercising that discretion, the trial court shall consider

“all relevant factors that shall appear reasonable and necessary, including primarily the financial resources of the parents and the child and the child’s commitment to, and aptitude for, the requested education.”

550 So.2d at 987. In addition, the trial court may consider

“the standard of living that the child would have enjoyed if the marriage had not been dissolved and the family unit had been preserved and the child’s relationship with his parents and responsiveness to parental advice and guidance.”

Id. In the present case, the daughter’s commitment to and aptitude for a college education were undisputed.

The trial court heard evidence from which it could have determined that the mother, the father, and the daughter all shared some responsibility for the estrangement between the father and the daughter. In light of the holding in Bay-liss that a trial court is not required to consider “the child’s relationship to [her] parents and responsiveness to parental advice and guidance,” 550 So.2d at 987, it is clear that the estrangement between the father and the daughter is not alone sufficient to “ ‘preclude the daughter ... from having the opportunity to obtain a college education.’ ” Payne v. Williams, 678 So.2d 1118, 1122 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) (quoting Thrasher v. Wilburn, 574 So.2d 839, 841 (Ala.Civ.App.1990)). “In no instance has this court reversed a trial court’s imposition of postminority educational support solely because the evidence at trial reflected that the relationship between parent and child was so broken as to be a complete impediment to the receipt of such support.” Dunigan v. Bruning, 64 So.3d 645, 651 (Ala.Civ.App.2010) (second emphasis added).

In determining whether a parent should be ordered to pay postminority educational expenses, a trial court must consider whether the parent “has sufficient estate, earning capacity, or income to provide financial assistance without undue hardship to himself.” Thrasher v. Wil burn, 574 So.2d at 841. Although the father was unemployed and had only limited readily-accessible funds at the time of the hearing, the father acknowledged that he was able to be employed and that he had postponed his search for employment only in order to accomplish necessary repairs to his mother’s house. The father stated that he had worked as a carpenter for 81 years and had recently earned $19.50 per hour when he had worked but that, with the slowdown in the construction trades, there had not been enough work for him to do and he had been laid off. Although the father expressed some reservation about his ability to engage in heavy-construction labor as he had done in the past, the trial court was presented with evidence from which it could have determined that the father had the skills to obtain a carpentry job that was less physically demanding and that would pay a wage approximating his previous earnings. See Arnett v. Arnett, 812 So.2d 1246, 1250 (Ala.Civ.App.2001) (stating that it was “within the trial court’s discretion to determine not only the father’s earnings, but also his ability to earn”).

Notwithstanding the foregoing discussion, we conclude that here, as in Baggett v. Foster, 622 So.2d 350, 353 (Ala.Civ.App.1992), “the possibility of undue hardship, as defined in Thrasher, exists under the trial court’s order as written.” First, the judgment states that “the parties are to equally be responsible for the tuition, books, board, food, transportation, [and] medical insurance, after applying any scholarships.” (Emphasis added.) Although the mother indicated that the daughter had received a scholarship, the daughter stated only that she had applied for scholarships, not that she had received any scholarships.

Second, the judgment does not make the father’s financial obligation subject to the application of the Pell grant that the daughter testified she had been awarded. Nor does it make the father’s obligation subject to the application of the daughter’s student loan or the income from the daughter’s part-time job, either of which the trial court could, in its discretion, have declined to consider as sources that reduced the father’s postminority-support obligation. Nevertheless, the trial court’s specific mention of “scholarships” — a funding source that apparently did not exist in this case — and the trial court’s failure to mention the daughter’s Pell grant, student loan, and income from part-time employment — funding sources that did exist in this case — cast doubt upon the extent of the father’s financial obligation as set out in the judgment.

Third, the trial court’s judgment does not set reasonable limitations on the father’s responsibility for the daughter’s college expenses.

“Following Bayliss, this court has held that the trial court must set reasonable limitations on the parent’s responsibility for postminority education support, because a failure to do so may impose an undue hardship on the paying parent. These limitations include (1) limiting the support to a reasonable period, (2) requiring the child to maintain at least a ‘C’ average, and (3) requiring that the child be enrolled as a full-time student.”

Penney v. Penney, 785 So.2d 376, 379 (Ala.Civ.App.2000) (citations omitted). Although the judgment requires the daughter to maintain a “B” average, it does not limit the father’s support obligation to a reasonable period.

“[W]hen the judgment of the trial court has the potential to allow the child to prolong [her] undergraduate studies well beyond four years, by not requiring the child to take a minimum number of courses each session and by not limiting the number of courses that the child can withdraw from each semester, it will not be upheld. This court has also held that a reasonable limitation would include limiting the expenses to be paid by a parent to a particular college or institution.”

Penney v. Penney, 785 So.2d at 379. Nor does the judgment require that the daughter maintain full-time-student status. See Jacklin v. Austin, — So.3d at-(holding that, “[t]o the extent that the judgment under review does not contain an express condition that the ... child[ ] maintain full-time-student status, it is erroneous”).

Finally, the trial court’s judgment does not address the undisputed evidence indicating that the father had made child-support payments for 7 months after the daughter had reached the age of 19 on November 19, 2010, or indicate whether the trial court allocated those payments to the father’s postminority-support obligation. See Manring v. Manring, 744 So.2d 919, 922 (Ala.Civ.App.1999) (stating that, because it was “undisputed that the [father] paid child support for [the son] for one year after he reached the age of majority,” “[t]he trial court could have determined that the [father] had already met a portion of his postminority-support obligation in supporting [the son] past the date he reached the age of majority”).

Conclusion

Because the judgment (a) fails to address whether the father’s support obligation is subject to the application of the sources of funding that the evidence indicated had been ayailable and that had, in fact, been used during the daughter’s freshman year, (b) fails to impose reasonable limitations on the father’s postminority-educational-support obligation, and (c) does not indicate whether the child-support payments made by the father after the daughter turned 19 are to be allocated to the father’s postminority-support obligation, the extent of the father’s postmi-nority-support obligation is unclear, and this court is unable to determine whether the judgment subjects the father to undue hardship. See Taylor v. Taylor, 991 So.2d 228, 235 (Ala.Civ.App.2008) (“Because we cannot determine from the record the total extent of the father’s postminority-edu-cational-support obligation, we cannot say that the trial court’s judgment does not subject the father to undue hardship.”); Berry v. Berry, 579 So.2d 654, 656 (Ala.Civ.App.1991))(reversing an award of postminority support because this court was unable to determine from the judgment the total extent of the father’s financial obligation). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment, and we remand the cause with instructions to address the deficiencies discussed herein and to clarify the judgment.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

THOMPSON, P.J., and BRYAN, THOMAS, and MOORE, JJ., concur.

      . The maternal aunt testified that the mother's disability had been based upon a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.

      . The 90th day following the filing of the father’s postjudgment motion on August 28, 2011, was Saturday, November 26, 2011. The father’s postjudgment motion was, therefore, deemed denied on Monday, November 28, 2011. See Williamson v. Fourth Ave. Supermarket, Inc., 12 So.3d 1200, 1203-04 (Ala.2009).

      . If the trial court intended that the daughter’s student loan did not reduce the father's educational-support obligation, its judgment fails to indicate whether the father has any obligation to repay the loan.

      . The payments totaled $2,265.90. We have computed that amount by multiplying $323.70 (the father’s monthly child-support obligation) by 7 (the number of months that the father paid child support after the daughter reached her 19th birthday).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: WINDOM, Presiding Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE of Alabama v. Edwin M. MOORE.
    CR-11-1079.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    Dec. 14, 2012.

      Luther Strange, atty. gen., and William D. Little, asst. atty. gen., for appellant.
    J. Carlton Taylor, Montgomery, for ap-pellee.
   WINDOM, Presiding Judge.

The State of Alabama appeals the circuit court’s decision to suppress evidence of crack cocaine discovered during a search of Edwin M. Moore’s vehicle after Moore was stopped for a traffic violation. For the reasons that follow, this Court reverses the circuit court’s order and remands this cause for further proceedings.

On January 20, 2012, a Montgomery County grand jury issued an indictment charging Moore with unlawful possession of a controlled substance, see § 13A-12-212(a)(1), Ala.Code 1975. On March 13, 2012, Moore filed a motion to suppress the crack cocaine seized during the traffic stop. In his motion, Moore argued that the crack cocaine was the product of an illegal search of his vehicle; therefore, he asserted, it should be suppressed.

On April 3, 2012, the circuit court held a hearing on Moore’s motion. During the hearing, Corporal Mark Wells, an officer with the Montgomery Police Department, testified that, while on patrol on July 23, 2011, he saw a vehicle run a stop sign; therefore, he stopped the vehicle to give the driver a ticket. According to Cpl. Wells, he approached the driver’s side window and saw that there were three people in the vehicle. At that point, Cpl. Wells asked the driver, Moore, for his information. While speaking with Moore, Cpl. Wells could smell a strong odor of alcohol emanating from the vehicle. Cpl. Wells then went back to his patrol car to run Moore’s information through the law-enforcement system to see if there were any outstanding warrants for Moore’s arrest.

After determining that Moore did not have any outstanding warrants for his arrest, Cpl. Wells returned to Moore. At that point, Cpl. Wells asked Moore to get out of the vehicle so that he could observe Moore further to determine whether Moore was under the influence of alcohol. When Moore opened the door to get out of the vehicle, Cpl. Wells saw a clear plastic bag containing a white substance on the driver’s side floorboard of the vehicle. Cpl. Wells explained that, based on his experience, he believed that the bag contained crack cocaine. According to Cpl. Wells, the white substance was packaged in the corner of the bag, which was the way he had always seen crack cocaine packaged. After seeing the bag of crack cocaine, Cpl. Wells asked all the occupants of the car to get out so that he could safely seize the drugs. Once all the passengers were out of the vehicle, Cpl. Wells seized the bag of crack cocaine that forms the basis of Moore’s charge of unlawful possession of a controlled substance.

Meredith Moore, Moore’s ex-wife, testified that she and Alvin King were with Moore when Cpl. Wells stopped them. Meredith testified that they had been to the liquor store to buy vodka but that no one in the vehicle had been drinking. According to Meredith, while driving home, Moore did not come to a complete stop at a stop sign, and they were pulled over by Cpl. Wells. Meredith testified that Cpl. Wells got both Moore’s and her information and went back to his patrol car. When Cpl. Wells returned, he ordered Moore to get out of the car. He then ordered Meredith and King out of the car. According to Meredith:

“Corporal Wells asked if he — he said, if I were to search your vehicle, would I find anything in there? And [Moore] told him no. And he said, you tell me now, because if I search your vehicle and I find something, there’s going to be a lot more trouble than if you just go ahead and tell me the truth now. And we said, no, there’s nothing in the vehicle.”

(R. 8.) Meredith said that after Moore denied having anything in the vehicle, Cpl. Wells searched it and found crack cocaine.

After both sides presented their evidence, the circuit court asked Cpl. Wells whether he gave Moore a field-sobriety test, to which Cpl. Wells replied that he did not. The circuit court then questioned Cpl. Wells in detail regarding why he did not give Moore a field-sobriety test. Cpl. Wells explained that he did not give Moore a field-sobriety test because before giving the test he saw that Moore was in possession of crack cocaine and also saw that Moore did not appear to be too impaired to drive the vehicle. Thereafter, the circuit court granted Moore’s motion to suppress.

On appeal, the State argues that the circuit court abused its discretion by granting Moore’s motion to suppress because “the evidence was legally obtained under any view of the testimony at the suppression hearing.” (State’s brief, at 5.) This Court agrees.

Initially, this Court notes:

“ ‘ ‘When evidence is presented ore ten-us to the trial court, the court’s findings of fact based on that evidence are presumed to be correct,” Ex parte Perkins, 646 So.2d 46, 47 (Ala.1994); “[w]e indulge a presumption that the trial court properly ruled on the weight and probative force of the evidence,” Bradley v. State, 494 So.2d 750, 761 (Ala.Crim.App.1985), aff'd, 494 So.2d 772 (Ala.1986); and we make “ ‘all the reasonable inferences and credibility choices supportive of the decision of the trial court.’ ” Kennedy v. State, 640 So.2d 22, 26 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), quoting Bradley, 494 So.2d at 761. “[A]ny conflicts in the testimony or credibility of witnesses during a suppression hearing is a matter for resolution by the trial court.... Absent a gross abuse of discretion, a trial court’s resolution of [such] conflicts] should not be reversed on appeal.” Sheely v. State, 629 So.2d 23, 29 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) (citations omitted). However, “ ‘[w]here the evidence before the trial court was undisputed the ore tenus rule is inapplicable, and the [appellate] Court will sit in judgment on the evidence de novo, indulging no presumption in favor of the trial court’s application of the law to those facts.’ ” State v. Hill, 690 So.2d 1201, 1203 (Ala.1996), quoting Stiles v. Brown, 380 So.2d 792, 794 (Ala.1980). ‘““[W]hen the trial court improperly applies the law to the facts, no presumption of correctness exists as to the court’s judgment.” ’ ” Ex parte Jackson, 886 So.2d 155, 159 (Ala.2004), quoting Hill, 690 So.2d at 1203, quoting in turn Ex parte Agee, 669 So.2d 102, 104 (Ala.1995). A trial court’s ultimate legal conclusion on a motion to suppress based on a given set of facts is a question of law that is reviewed de novo on appeal. See State v. Smith, 785 So.2d 1169 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).’ ”

C.B.D. v. State, 90 So.3d 227, 237 (Ala.Crim.App.2011) (quoting State v. Hargett, 935 So.2d 1200, 1203-04 (Ala.Crim.App.2005)). “ ““ “A judge abuses his discretion only when his decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of law or where the record contains no evidence on which he rationally could have based his decision.” ”” ” Byrd v. State, 78 So.3d 445, 450-51 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) (quoting Hodges v. State, 926 So.2d 1060, 1072 (Ala.Crim.App.2005), quoting in turn State v. Jude, 686 So.2d 528, 530 (Ala.Crim.App.1996), quoting in turn Dowdy v. Gilbert Eng’g Co., 372 So.2d 11, 12 (Ala.1979), quoting in turn Premium Serv. Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson, Co., 511 F.2d 225 (9th Cir.1975)).

Further, it is well settled that warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless the State establishes that the search or seizure falls within a recognized exception. Ex parte Hilley, 484 So.2d 485, 488 (Ala.1985). Exceptions to the warrant requirement include: 1) objects in plain view; 2) consensual searches; 3) a search incident to a lawful arrest; 4) hot pursuit or emergency situations; 5) probable cause coupled with exigent circumstances; and 6) an investigatory detention and search for weapons pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Ex parte Tucker, 667 So.2d 1339, 1343 (Ala.1995). Another recognized exception to the warrant requirement is the “automobile exception,” which allows law enforcement to search an automobile based on probable cause alone. State v. Black, 987 So.2d 1177, 1180 (Ala.Crim.App. 2006)(citing Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 466-67, 119 S.Ct. 2013, 144 L.Ed.2d 442 (1999)).

In State v. Perry, 66 So.3d 291 (Ala.Crim.App.2010), this Court explained:

“[A] traffic stop is ‘ “ ‘more analogous’ to the brief investigative detention authorized in Terry [v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), ]” ’ than custody traditionally associated with a felony arrest. Sides v. State, 574 So.2d 856, 858 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), quoting Pittman v. State, 541 So.2d 583, 585 (Ala.Cr.App.1989), quoting in turn Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). In stopping a vehicle for a traffic violation, a police officer has, in Fourth Amendment terms, seized the driver, Cains v. State, 555 So.2d 290, 292 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), quoting Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). ‘Under Terry [v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)], law-enforcement officers may stop a vehicle for investigatory purposes based on a traffic violation. State v. Rodgers, 903 So.2d 176, 178 (Ala.Crim.App.2004).’ J.T.C. v. State, 990 So.2d 444, 447 (Ala.Crim.App.2008).”

66 So.3d at 294. “So long as the police officer has properly seized the occupants of the car, the officer may order the driver, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111 (1977), or a passenger, State v. Hails, 814 So.2d 980 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (recognizing Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 415 (1997)), cert. denied, 814 So.2d 988 (Ala.2001), out of the car -without violating the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Bailey, 49 So.3d 1245, 1250 (Ala.Crim.App.2010); see also Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) (holding that when law-enforcement officers have legally stopped the' driver of a vehicle, they may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, order a driver out of the ear for any reason or for no reason). After the driver has been ordered out of the car, “[t]he officer may seize any contraband, including weapons, in plain view.” Camp v. State, 983 So.2d 1141, 1144 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (quoting United States v. Purcell, 236 F.3d 1274, 1277 (11th Cir.2001), citing in turn Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983)).

The Supreme Court of the United States has explained that “if contraband is left in open view and is observed by a police officer from a lawful vantage point, there has been no invasion of a legitimate expectation of privacy and thus no search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment — or at least no search independent of the initial intrusion that gave the officers their vantage point.” Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993). Thus, “[t]he plain view exception to the search warrant requirement ‘ “permits a warrantless seizure of evidence if the seizing officer (1) has prior justification for the [initial] intrusion, ... [and (2) ] immediately recognizes the object[ ] discovered as evidence of wrongdoing.’” ” State v. Otwell, 733 So.2d 950, 953 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (quoting Smith v. State, 472 So.2d 677, 682-83 (Ala.Crim.App.1984), quoting in turn Herrin v. State, 349 So.2d 103 (Ala.Crim.App.1977)). See also Otwell, 733 So.2d at 953 (recognizing that there is no requirement under the plain-view doctrine that the officer come upon the evidence inadvertently).

Here, there is no dispute that Cpl. Wells lawfully stopped Moore for running a stop sign. See Perry, 66 So.3d at 294 (explaining the law-enforcement officers may lawfully stop the driver of a vehicle for a traffic violation). Once Moore was lawfully stopped, Cpl. Wells properly ordered him to get out of the vehicle. See Mimms, 434 U.S. at 111 (holding that the Fourth Amendment does not require law-enforcement officers to have a reason for ordering a driver who has been lawfully stopped to get out of the vehicle); Perry, 66 So.3d at 294 (same). After Moore opened the door to get out of the vehicle, Cpl. Wells, who was lawfully in a position to view the floorboard of Moore’s vehicle, saw, in plain view, what he recognized to be a plastic bag containing crack cocaine. Thereafter, he properly seized the crack cocaine under the plain-view doctrine.

As the State correctly argues, Cpl. Wells “legally obtained [the crack cocaine] under any view of the testimony at the suppression hearing.” (State’s brief, at 5.) In other words, “the record contains no evidence on which [the circuit court] rationally could have based [its] decision” to grant Moore’s motion to suppress. Byrd, 78 So.3d at 450-51. Consequently, the circuit court abused its discretion by doing so.

Accordingly, the order of the circuit court suppressing the evidence is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

WELCH, KELLUM, BURKE, and JOINER, JJ., concur.


author: PER CURIAM. WELCH, Judge, JOINER, Judge,

text:
    Cornelius Antoine BILLINGSLEY v. STATE of Alabama.
    CR-10-0540.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    Dec. 14, 2012.

      Jason B. Dial, Montgomery, for appellant.
    Luther Strange, atty. gen., and William D. Dill, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Cornelius Antoine Bill-ingsley, appeals his guilty-plea conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, see § 13A-11-200, Ala.Code 1975. The circuit court sentenced Billingsley to five years’ imprisonment but suspended that sentence and placed him on two years’ probation. Additionally, the circuit court ordered Billingsley to pay a $50 crime-victims-compensation assessment, an attorney fee, and court costs.

On January 28, 2010, the St. Clair County Grand Jury indicted Billingsley as follows:

“Cornelius Antoine Billingsley, whose name to the Grand Jury is otherwise unknown, having been convicted of the crime of Carnal Knowledge,[] in the [United States] Military Court of First Region Fort Belvoir, and having been released from legal custody did fail or refuse to first register as required, in violation of [§ ] 13A-11-200 of the Code of Alabama, 1975, as last amended, against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama.”

(C. 28.) Thereafter, Billingsley filed what he styled as a “motion to dismiss indictment” and an “amended motion to dismiss indictment,” in which he argued that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because, he said, “the legislature did not intend to include [Uniform Code of Military Justice] convictions within the control of § 13A-ll-200[, Ala.Code 1975].” On December 16, 2010, the circuit court denied Billingsley’s motions and Billings-ley pleaded guilty, reserving for appeal the issues raised in his motions.

During the guilty-plea proceeding the State proffered the following factual basis for Billingsley’s guilty plea:

“[Billingsley] is convicted of a criminal sex offense and lived in Jefferson County and moved to the Southern Division of St. Clair County without giving notice and listed a Trails End address in St. Clair County without giving notice to the sheriff. That’s all.”

(R. 6.)

On appeal, Billingsley argues that the circuit court did not have “jurisdiction to convict [him] of failure to register as a sex offender under [§ ] 13A-ll-200[, Ala. Code 1975,] when the offense [that] made the basis of the failure to register conviction is a conviction in a ... military court.” (Billingsley’s brief, p. 6.)

The State, relying on this Court’s affirmance by unpublished memorandum in Billingsly v. State (No. CR-08-1971, Oct. 22, 2010), 92 So.3d 814 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (table), contends that Billingsley’s argument is not preserved for review because, it says, “[although Billingsley raised the issue in a pretrial motion and reserved the right to appeal its denial, the issue is nothing more than a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, which is not proper in a motion to dismiss an indictment.” (State’s brief, p. 4.) In our previous unpublished memorandum, this Court relied on the holding in Doseck v. State, 8 So.3d 1024 (Ala.Crim.App.2008). This Court subsequently overruled Doseck, however, in Ankrom v. State, [Ms. CR-09-1148, Aug. 26, 2011] — So.3d-(Ala.Crim.App.2011), holding:

“[I]n Doseck v. State, 8 So.3d 1024 (Ala.Crim.App.2008), this Court declined to review the merits of a similar issue because the issue had been improperly raised in the trial court by way of a motion to dismiss. This Court held that Rule 13.5(c)(1), Ala. R.Crim. P., does not permit dismissal of an indictment based on the insufficiency of the evidence and that no other ‘Rule of Criminal Procedure ... provides a mechanism for a pretrial challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.’ Doseck, 8 So.3d at 1025.
“In the present ease, Ankrom’s attorney referenced the indictment when reserving the issue for review and styled the pleading as a ‘Motion to Dismiss Indictment.’ However, the motion was obviously mislabeled, because it did not challenge the validity of the indictment. Rather, Ankrom’s motion and argument forthrightly raised the issue whether her conduct, as a matter of law, constituted a violation of § 26-15-3.2, Ala.Code 1975, the offense charged in the indictment. The trial court was clearly on notice of this legal issue, interpreted the language of the statute to encompass Ankrom’s conduct, and accepted An-krom’s reservation of the issue for appellate review. The State did not object to the reservation of this issue.
“Procedurally, Doseck appears to be nearly identical to the present case and, if followed, would require this Court to hold that Ankrom’s claim is not properly before this Court for review. However, upon reexamining Doseck, we now believe that this decision conflicts with established precedent from the Alabama Supreme Court, such as Ex parte Deramus, 882 So.2d 875[, 876] (Ala.2002). In Ex parte Deramus, the Alabama Supreme Court held:
“ ‘Indeed, the mere mislabeling of a motion is not fatal. King Mines Resort, Inc. v. Malachi Mining & Minerals, Inc., 518 So.2d 714, 718 (Ala.1987). This Court has stated that it is “committed to the proposition that it will treat a motion (or other pleading) and its assigned grounds according to its substance.” King Mines Resort, 518 So.2d at 718; see also Lockhart v. Phenix City Inv. Co., 488 So.2d 1353 (Ala.1986), and Sexton v. Prisock, 495 So.2d 581 (Ala.1986). Further, the Court has held that “[t]he substance of a motion and not its style determines what kind of motion it is.” Evans v. Waddell, 689 So.2d 23, 26 (Ala.1997).’
“... [W]e now hold that, in circumstances such as those presented in this case and in Doseck — where a pure question of law as to whether an accused’s actions constitute a violation of the statute he or she is charged with violating is properly presented to the trial court, ruled on by the trial court, and properly reserved for appeal during the guilty-plea colloquy — the appellant should not be penalized for raising that question of law in an improperly styled pleading, such as in a motion to dismiss the indictment. To hold otherwise would result in legally meritless cases being sent to trial and would waste precious judicial resources. Additionally, it is important to note that the State and Ankrom presented this legal issue fully to the trial court. Further, all parties were clearly aware of the question presented to, and ruled upon, by the trial court. It would be procedural folly for our Court to now refuse to consider the merits of this issue. To the extent that this Court’s opinion in Doseck held otherwise, it is hereby overruled. Moreover, Ankrom raised this specific issue orally during the guilty-plea proceeding and thereafter reserved it for review.”

Ankrom, — So.3d at-(footnote omitted).

The record here, as in Ankrom, establishes that Billingsley filed what he styled as a “motion to dismiss indictment” and an “amended motion to dismiss indictment,” which do not, as the State contends, challenge the sufficiency of the State’s evidence to support his conviction; rather, they present a pure question of law as to whether Billingsley’s actions constitute a violation of § 13A-11-200, Ala.Code 1975. Furthermore, Billingsley specifically reserved the right to appeal “the issues of jurisdiction and void for vagueness.” (C. 5.) Thus, based on this Court’s holding in Ankrom, Billingsley has properly reserved and preserved this argument for review. Accordingly, we now address Billingsley’s claim on appeal.

Billingsley, as stated above, contends that the circuit court was without “jurisdiction to convict [him] of failure to register as a sex offender under [§ ] 13A-ll-200[, Ala.Code 1975.]” Specifically, Billingsley contends that a conviction in a United States military court does not “trigger[] any duty to register under [§ ] 13A-11-200, Ala.Code 1975.” (Billingsley’s brief, pp. 3-4.) The State, on the other hand, contends that military courts are federal courts because, it says, military courts are “created by federal law under Article I of the United States Constitution” and “the Uniform Code of Military Justice — the governing code followed by the United States military courts in criminal proceedings — is federal law deriving directly from the United States Constitution.” (State’s brief, pp. 7-8.) Thus, the issue before this Court is whether § 13A-11-200, Ala.Code 1975, requires a person convicted of a qualifying offense in a United States military court to register with the sheriff of the county where he or she maintains his or her legal residence.

In Soles v. State, 820 So.2d 163 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), this Court stated:

“ ‘The first rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature should be given effect. Ex parte McCall, 596 So.2d 4 (Ala.1992); Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Dillard, 579 So.2d 1301 (Ala.1991). However, when possible, the intent of the legislature should be gathered from the language of the statute itself. Dillard, supra. Thus, where the language of the statute is plain, the court must give effect to the clear meaning of that language. Ex parte United Service Stations, Inc., 628 So.2d 501 (Ala.1993); IMED Corp. v. Systems Eng’g Associates Corp., 602 So.2d 344 (Ala.1992).’
“Beavers v. County of Walker, 645 So.2d 1365, 1376-77 (Ala.1994). See also Tuscaloosa County Comm’n v. Deputy Sheriffs' Ass’n of Tuscaloosa County, 589 So.2d 687, 689 (Ala.1991) (‘Words used in [a] statute must be given their natural, plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, and where plain language is used a court is bound to interpret that language to mean exactly what it says. If the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, then there is no room for judicial construction and the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must be given effect.’ (citations omitted)).”

820 So.2d at 164-65. “Principles of statutory construction instruct this Court to interpret the plain language of a statute to mean exactly what it says and to engage in judicial construction only if the language in the statute is ambiguous.” Ex parte Pratt, 815 So.2d 532, 535 (Ala.2001). “[0]nly if there is no rational way to interpret the words stated will we look beyond those words to determine legislative intent.” DeKalb County LP Gas Co. v. Suburban Gas, Inc., 729 So.2d 270, 276 (Ala.1998).

Section 13A-11-200, Ala.Code 1975, provides, in part:

“(b) If any person, except a delinquent child, as defined in Section 12-15-1, residing in Alabama, has heretofore been convicted, or shall be convicted in any state or municipal court in Alabama, or federal court, or so convicted in another state in any court having jurisdiction similar to the jurisdiction of state and municipal courts in Alabama for any of the offenses hereinafter enumerated, such person shall, upon his or her release from legal custody, register with the sheriff of the county of his or her legal residence within seven days following such release or within 30 days after September 7, 1967, in ease such person was released prior to such date. For purposes of this article, a conviction includes a plea of nolo contendere, regardless of whether adjudication was withheld. The offenses above referred to are generally any act of sexual perversion involving a member of the same or the opposite sex, or any sexual abuse of any member of the same or the opposite sex or any attempt to commit any of these acts, and without limiting the generality of the above statement shall include specifically: Rape, as proscribed by Sections 13A-6-61 and 13A-6-62; sodomy, as proscribed by Sections 13A-6-63 and 13A-6-64; sexual misconduct, as proscribed by Section. 13A-6-65; indecent exposure, as proscribed by Section 13A-6-68; promoting prostitution in the first or second degree, as proscribed by Sections 13A-12-111 and 13A-12-112; obscenity, as proscribed by Section 13A-12-131; incest, as proscribed by Section 13A-13-3; or the attempt to commit any of the above offenses.”

A plain reading of § 13A-11-200, Ala. Code 1975, establishes that the statute consists of three parts. First, the statute contains a jurisdictional portion, which sets out the jurisdictions in which convictions for qualifying offenses require registration as follows:

“If any person ... residing in Alabama, has heretofore been convicted, or shall be convicted in any state or municipal court in Alabama, or federal court, or so convicted in another state in any court having jurisdiction similar to the jurisdiction of state and municipal courts in Alabama....”

§ 13A-ll-200(b), Ala.Code 1975. Second, the statute explains the time frame in which an offender is required to register. § 13A-ll-200(b), Ala.Code 1975 (“Much person shall, upon his or her release from legal custody, register with the sheriff of the county of his of her legal residence within seven days following such release or within 30 days after September 7, 1967, in case such person was released prior to such date.... ”). Finally, the statute defines the terms “conviction” and “offenses” as follows:

“For purposes of this article, a conviction includes a plea of nolo contendere, regardless of whether adjudication was withheld. The offenses above referred to are generally any act of sexual perversion involving a member of the same or the opposite sex, or any sexual abuse of any member of the same or the opposite sex or any attempt to commit any of these acts, and without limiting the generality of the above statement shall include specifically: Rape, as proscribed by Sections 13A-6-61 and 13A-6-62; sodomy, as proscribed by Sections 13A-6-63 and 13A-6-64; sexual misconduct, as proscribed by Section 13A-6-65; indecent exposure, as proscribed by Section 13A-6-68; promoting prostitution in the first or second degree, as proscribed by Sections 13A-12-111 and 13A-12-112; obscenity, as proscribed by Section 13A-12-131; incest, as proscribed by Section 13A-13-3; or the attempt to commit any of the above offenses.”

§ 13A-ll-200(b), Ala.Code 1975.

On appeal, Billingsley challenges the jurisdictional portion of the statute only; namely, whether military courts are included in the jurisdictional portion of the statute making it applicable to those convicted in “federal court.” § 13A-11-200(b), Ala.Code 1975.

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 459 (11th ed.2003) defines “federal court” as “a court established by a federal government” or “one established under the constitution and laws of the U.S.” Military courts are legislative courts, established under Art. I, § 8, Cl. 14 of the United States Constitution, which grants Congress the power “[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” See, e.g., Gosa v. Mayden, 413 U.S. 665, 686, 93 S.Ct. 2926, 37 L.Ed.2d 873 (1973) (stating that “a military tribunal is an Article I legislative court with jurisdiction independent of judicial power created and defined by Article III”). Pursuant to its Article I authority, see Solorio v. United States, 483 U.S. 435, 438-39, 107 S.Ct. 2924, 97 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987), Congress enacted the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 801 to 950, which established “an integrated system of military courts and review procedures.” Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738, 758, 95 S.Ct. 1300, 43 L.Ed.2d 591 (1975). Therefore, military courts are federally created courts established under the United States Constitution. Accordingly, the plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning of the term “federal court” includes a military court.

In Esters v. State, 480 So.2d 615 (Ala.Crim.App.1985), we held that a prior court-martial conviction could be used to enhance a sentence pursuant to the provisions of the Alabama Habitual Felony Offender Act, see § 13A-5-9, Ala. Code 1975, so long as that conviction otherwise qualified as a felony pursuant to Rule 6(b)(3)(iv), Ala. R.Crim. P. (Temp.) (now Rule 26.6(b)(3)(iv), Ala. R.Crim. P.). In so holding, this Court recognized that “[t]he Uniform Code of Military Justice, under which appellant was previously convicted, is a law of the United States and has the force and effect of federal statutes. People v. Benjamin, [7 A.D.2d 410, 184 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1959)]; 10 U.S.C.A. § 801, et seq.; 6 C.J.S. Armed Services § 155 (1975).” Esters, 480 So.2d at 617.

As in Esters, a conviction for violating provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice — a law of the United States — carries consequences under Alabama law. In the instant case, the use of the term “federal court” in § 13A-ll-200(b), Ala.Code 1975, encompasses the military-court tribunals created by Congress. Because convictions in “federal court” as used in § 13A-ll-200(b) include convictions in military courts, Billingsley’s guilty-plea conviction for failing to register as a sex offender is due to be affirmed.

Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

KELLUM, J., concurs.

WINDOM, P.J., and BURKE, J., concur in the result.

WELCH, J., concurs in the result, with opinion.

JOINER, J., dissents, with opinion.

WELCH, Judge,

concurring in the result.

The majority affirms Cornelius Antoine Billingsley’s guilty-plea conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, a violation of § 13A-11-200, Ala.Code 1975. I concur only in the result reached in the Court’s opinion for the same reasons I stated in my special writings in Ankrom v. State, [Ms. CR-09-1148, August 26, 2011] - So.3d - (Ala.Crim.App.2011) (Welch, P.J., concurring in the result and dissenting in part), and in Hicks v. State, [Ms. CR-09-0642, Nov. 4, 2011] — So.3d - (Ala.Crim.App.2011) (Welch, P.J., concurring in the result). I believe that the indictment here, like the indictments in Ankrom and Hicks, properly charged an offense within the circuit court’s jurisdiction and that the circuit court correctly denied Billingsley’s pretrial motions seeking dismissal of the indictment, because to rule otherwise would have been an impermissible pretrial determination as to the sufficiency of the evidence. Continuing to adhere to this view, I also disagree with the Ankrom Court’s decision to overrule Doseck v. State, 8 So.3d 1024 (Ala.Crim.App.2008), for the reasons fully explained in my special writing in Ankrom, including that “allowing a trial court to conduct a pretrial review of the underlying substantive issue presented here — whether the defendant’s actions constitute a violation of the statute” — “modified the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure and engraft-ed into the rules a form of summary judgment as found in the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rule 56, Ala. R. Civ. P.” Ankrom v. State, — So.3d at - (Welch, P.J., concurring in the result and dissenting in part).

Moreover, here, as in Ankrom and in Hicks, Billingsley pleaded guilty after the circuit court denied his motions to dismiss the indictment but now seeks to challenge the State’s evidence that supported the conviction. Because Billingsley pleaded guilty, an appellate challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence would be resolved adversely to him. Lawrence v. State, 953 So.2d 431, 433 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) (“‘A guilty plea serves as an admission to all elements of the offense charged.’ ” (quoting Mitchell v. State, 495 So.2d 738, 739 (Ala.Crim.App.1986))).

Therefore, I believe that Billingsley’s conviction is due to be affirmed. However, in this case I can concur only in the result because the analysis relies on Ankrom. I believe that the circuit court’s proper denial of Billingsley’s motions to dismiss the indictment rendered unnecessary the majority’s determination that convictions in military courts are convictions in “federal court” as that term is used in § 13A-11-200(b), Ala. Code 1975.

For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully concur in the result.

JOINER, Judge,

dissenting.

Although I agree with the main opinion to the extent that it addresses the merits of this case, see Ankrom v. State, [Ms. CR-09-1148, Aug. 26, 2011] — So.3d(Ala.Crim.App.2011), I respectfully dissent from the main opinion’s conclusion that the term “federal court” as it is used in § 13A-11-200, Ala.Code 1975, plainly includes a military court.

Billingsley argues that the circuit court did not have “jurisdiction to convict [him] of failure to register as a sex offender under [§ ] 13A-ll-200[, Ala.Code 1975,] when the offense [that] made the basis of the failure to register conviction is a conviction in a ... military court.” (Billings-ley’s brief, p. 6.) The State, on the other hand, contends that military courts are encompassed within the term “federal court” as that term is used in § 13A-11-200, Ala.Code 1975. Thus, the main opinion correctly frames the issue as follows:

“[T]he issue before this Court is whether § 13A-11-200, Ala.Code 1975, requires a person convicted of a qualifying offense in a United States military court to register with the sheriff of the county where he or she maintains his or her legal residence.”

115 So.3d at 196. This is an issue of first impression.

As a threshold matter, I note that with regard to the construction of criminal statutes we have held:

“ ‘ “The touchstone of legislative construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature as expressed in the statute.” Horn v. Citizens Hosp., 425 So.2d 1065, 1070 (Ala.1982) (emphasis added). This Court gives effect to the intent of the legislature as expressed in the plain, unambiguous language of the statute. Jefferson County Comm’n v. Edwards, 32 So.3d 572, 586 (Ala.2009).’
“Ex parte Catlin, 72 So.3d 606, 607-08 (Ala.2011) (Cobb, C.J., concurring specially).
“ ‘It is a well established principle of statutory interpretation that “[w]here the meaning of the plain language of the statute is clear, it must be construed according to its plain language.” Ex parte United Serv. Stations, Inc., 628 So.2d 501, 504 (Ala.1993). “Principles of statutory construction instruct this Court to interpret the plain language of a statute to mean exactly what it says and to engage in judicial construction only if the language in the statute is ambiguous.” Ex parte Pratt, 815 So.2d 532, 535 (Ala.2001).
“ ““ “[C]riminal statutes must be strictly construed, to avoid ensnaring behavior that is not clearly proscribed.” ’ United States v. Bridges, 493 F.2d 918, 922 (5th Cir.1974).
“ ‘ “ ‘In United States v. Boston & M. RR Co., 380 U.S. 157, 85 S.Ct. 868, 870, 13 L.Ed.2d 728 (1965), the Supreme Court stated:
“ ““ “A criminal statute is to be construed strictly, not loosely. Such are the teachings of our cases from United States v. Wiltberger [18 U.S. 76], 5 Wheat. 76, 5 L.Ed. 37 [(1820)], down to this day. Chief Justice Marshall said in that case:
“ ““ “ ‘The rule that penal laws are to be construed strictly, is, perhaps, not much less old than construction itself. It is founded on the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals; and on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department.’ Id., p. 95.
“ ““ “The fact that a particular activity may be within the same general classification and policy of those covered does not necessarily bring it within the ambit of the criminal prohibition. United States v. Weitzel, 246 U.S. 533, 38 S.Ct. 381, 62 L.Ed. 872 [(1918)].”
“ ‘ “ ‘Moreover, “one ‘is not to be subjected to a penalty unless the words of the statute plainly impose it[.]’ Keppel v. Tiffin Savings Bank, 197 U.S. 356, 362, 25 S.Ct. 443, 49 L.Ed. 790 [(1905)]. ‘[Wjhen choice has to be made between two readings of what conduct Congress has made a crime, it is appropriate, before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite.’ United States v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp., 344 U.S. 218, 221-222, 73 S.Ct. 227, 229-230, 97 L.Ed. 260 [(1952)].” United States v. Campos-Serrano, 404 U.S. 293, 297, 92 S.Ct. 471, 474, 30 L.Ed.2d 457 (1971).’
“ ‘ “Bridges, 493 F.2d at 923.” ’
“Crawford v. State, 100 So.3d 610, 614-15 (Ala.Crim.App.2011).”

J.D.I. v. State, 77 So.3d 610, 616 (Ala.Crim.App.2011). Thus, in other words, it is important that this Court not construe criminal statutes too broadly; instead, we must construe criminal statutes narrowly to avoid criminalizing actions the legislature did not specifically intend to criminalize.

According to our standard of review, we must first determine whether the language of § 13A-11-200, Ala.Code 1975, is plain or ambiguous.

To determine whether a statute is plain, “ ‘this Court looks to the plain meaning of the words as written by the legislature. As we have said:
“ ‘ “ Words used in a statute must be given their natural, plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, and where plain language is used a court is bound to interpret that language to mean exactly what it says. If the language of the statute is unambiguous, then there is no room for judicial construction and the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must be given effect.’ ” ’ ”

Munnerlyn v. Alabama Dep’t of Corr., 946 So.2d 436, 438 (Ala.2006) (quoting DeKalb County LP Gas Co. v. Suburban Gas, Inc., 729 So.2d 270, 275-77 (Ala.1998) (internal citations omitted)). “‘Therefore, only if there is no rational way to interpret the words as stated will we look beyond those words to determine legislative intent.’ ” Id. We must be careful, however, to avoid finding, as the main opinion does, that a criminal statute is plain merely because the words used in the statute can be easily defined. See, e.g., United States v. Monia, 317 U.S. 424, 431, 63 S.Ct. 409, 87 L.Ed. 376 (1943) (“The notion that because the words of a statute are plain, its meaning is also plain, is merely a pernicious oversimplification.” (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)).

Regarding statutory ambiguity, on the other hand, it is well settled that “[statutory language is ambiguous if it is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. See Atlantic States Legal Found., Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 897 F.2d 1128, 1138 (11th Cir.1990) (statutory language unambiguous because ‘capable of only a single reasonable interpretation’).” Medical Transp. Mgmt. Corp. v. Comm’r of I.R.S., 506 F.3d 1364, 1368 (11th Cir.2007). Thus, if there exists more than one rational way to interpret the meaning of a statute, the statute is ambiguous.

Additionally, if a criminal statute is ambiguous the rule of lenity applies, which “ ‘requires that “ambiguous criminal statute[s] .... be construed in favor of the accused.” ’ ” See Ex parte Bertram, 884 So.2d 889, 892 (Ala.2003) (quoting Castillo v. United States, 530 U.S. 120, 120 S.Ct. 2090, 147 L.Ed.2d 94 (2000)).

Here, the main opinion defines the term “federal court” using Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, which defines “federal court” as “a court established by a federal government; esp: one established under the constitution and laws of the U.S.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 459 (11th ed.2003). Based on that definition, the main opinion concludes that “the plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning of the term ‘federal court’ includes a military court” because “military courts are federally created courts established under the United States Constitution.” 115 So.3d at 198. The main opinion’s interpretation of the term “federal court” as it is used in § 13A-11-200, Ala.Code 1975, is broad and would require registration of an individual convicted of any qualifying offense in every court as long as that court was, in some way, created by a federal government — regardless of where that federal government is located.

To support this broad interpretation, the main opinion looks to the Habitual Felony Offender Act and cites Esters v. State, 480 So.2d 615 (Ala.Crim.App.1985), in which, as the main opinion states, “ ‘we held that a prior court-martial conviction could be used to enhance a sentence pursuant to the provisions of the Alabama Habitual Felony Offender Act, see § 13A-5-9, Ala. Code 1975, so long as that conviction otherwise qualified as a felony pursuant to Rule 6(b)(8)(iv), Ala. R.Crim. P. (Temp.) (now Rule 26.6(b)(S)(iv), Ala. R.Crim. P.).’ ” 115 So.3d at 198. Reliance on Esters and the Habitual Felony Offender Act, however, is not appropriate when trying to determine whether a military court is subsumed into the term “federal court” in § 13A-11-200, because § 13A-5-9, Ala. Code 1975, and § 13A-11-200 are two distinct statutes with two distinct structures.

Specifically, as the main opinion points out, § 13A-11-200 consists of three portions, including a jurisdictional portion that refers only to those jurisdictions in which a qualifying conviction has occurred. In other words, § 13A-11-200 specifically requires that, before the duty to register arises, an individual must have been convicted of a qualifying offense in a specific jurisdiction — that is, “in any state or municipal court in Alabama, or federal court, or so convicted in another state in any court having jurisdiction similar to the jurisdiction of state and municipal courts in Alabama.” If an individual had previously been convicted of a qualifying offense outside these jurisdictional limits no duty to register arises.

Section 13A-5-9, on the other hand, has no language requiring an individual’s previous felony conviction to have been in a specific jurisdiction before the individual could be sentenced as a habitual felony offender. This Court has held that “[§ ] 13A-5-9, |Ala.Code 1975,] specifically says, ‘[P]reviously convicted of any felony.’ (Emphasis added.) Clearly, this language means that all felonies come within the purview of the habitual felony offender statute, regardless of their origin.” Watson v. State, 392 So.2d 1274, 1279 (Ala. Crim.App.1980). Thus, in the habitual-felony-offender context it does not matter whether the prior felony conviction occurred in a military court because that statute, as written, contemplates all felony convictions.

Thus, § 13A-11-200 is more narrowly tailored than § 13A-5-9, and to interpret § 13A-11-200 in the same manner as § 13A-5-9 to include military-court convictions construes § 13A-11-200 too broadly and gives § 13A-11-200 the same jurisdictional limitation as § 13A-5-9 — that is, none. Thus, the main opinion’s construction of § 13A-11-200 ignores the requirement that we not construe criminal statutes too broadly and that, instead, we must construe criminal statutes narrowly to avoid criminalizing actions the legislature did not specifically intend to criminalize. See J.D.I., supra.

Furthermore, the main opinion’s construction of § 13A-11-200 overlooks the context of the term “federal court” as it is used in that statute. Specifically, the term “federal court” is contained in the jurisdictional portion of the statute, and it is used in the context of federal court jurisdiction. The main opinion’s construction of the term “federal court” — “a court established by a federal government” — improperly focuses on the governing body that created the court, not the jurisdiction the court has. With regard to the jurisdictional context of the term “federal court,” however, it is unclear whether the legislature intended the term “federal court” to mean all federal courts or to mean only specific federal courts with specific federal jurisdiction — for example, a federal district court created under Article III of the United States Constitution. Because the term “federal court” is unclear, the statute is not plain; rather, it is ambiguous, and we must determine what the legislature intended when it used the term “federal court.”

Because the language of § 13A-11-200 is ambiguous this Court can “ ‘examine extrinsic materials, including legislative history, to determine [legislative] intent.’ ” Pinigis v. Regions Bank, 977 So.2d 446, 451 (Ala.2007) (quoting Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta v. Thomas, 220 F.3d 1235, 1239 (11th Cir.2000)). The legislative history of this statute establishes that a military court is not subsumed in the term “federal court” in § 13A-11-200.

In Radney v. State, 840 So.2d 190, 196 (Ala.Crim.App.2002), Radney argued that “[bjecause he was convicted in federal court, not a state or municipal court ... he was not required to register as a sex offender under § 13A-ll-200[, AIa.Code 1975],” 840 So.2d at 195 (emphasis added), which, at that time, provided, in part:

“ ‘If any person ... residing in Alabama, has heretofore been convicted, or shall be convicted in any state or municipal court in Alabama or so convicted in another state in any court having jurisdiction similar to the jurisdiction of state and municipal courts in Alabama for any of the offenses hereinafter enumerated....’”

Id. at 196. This Court then concluded:

“Nothing in the plain language of the statute suggests that the Legislature intended to impose a registration requirement on a federally convicted sex offender. The phrases ‘in any state or municipal court in Alabama’ and ‘in another state in any court having jurisdiction similar to the jurisdiction of state and municipal courts in Alabama’ are clear on their face and do not include convictions in federal court. Radney was convicted in a federal district court in Alabama; he was not convicted in a ‘state or municipal court in Alabama’ and he was not convicted ‘in another state in any court having jurisdiction similar to the jurisdiction of state and municipal courts in Alabama.’ Therefore, Radney was not required to register as a sex offender under § 13A-11-200; his conviction for violating § 13A-11-200 must be reversed.”

Id.

In Radney, when this Court held that nothing in the statute “suggests that the Legislature intended to impose a registration requirement on a federally convicted sex offender” and further held that § 13A-11-200 did not include “convictions in federal court,” this Court was referencing only Radne/s conviction in a federal district court.

After Radney was decided, the legislature, in 2005, amended § 13A-11-200 by adding the phrase “or federal court” to the list of courts enumerated in the jurisdictional portion of the statute. Act No. 2005-301, Ala. Acts 2005. The addition of the phrase “or federal court,” appears to remedy only the issue addressed by this Court in Radney — that is, whether § 13A-11-200, Ala.Code 1975, required registration of those individuals convicted of a qualifying offense in a federal district court. Thus, it appears the legislature intended to overrule our decision in Rad-ney and to require registration of only those individuals convicted of a qualifying offense in a federal district court.

This conclusion is supported by the recently enacted Alabama Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act (“SORNA”), which repealed and replaced § 13A-11-200 and which is codified at § 15-20A-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975. See generally Blockbuster, Inc. v. White, 819 So.2d 43, 46 (Ala.2001) (“Courts must consider subsequent acts passed by the Legislature to clarify previously ambiguous provisions.”).

Section 15-20A-10, Ala.Code 1975, requires an individual who has been convicted of a qualifying offense to register with the sheriff of the county where he maintains his legal residence. Failure to do so is a Class C felony. § 15 — 20A—10(j), Ala. Code 1975. The term “conviction,” as it is used in § 15-20A-10, is defined as follows:

“A determination or judgment of guilt following a verdict or finding of guilt as the result of a trial, a plea of guilty, a plea of nolo contendere, or an Alford plea. Conviction includes, but is not limited to, a conviction in a United States territory, a conviction in a federal or military tribunal, including a court martial conducted by the Armed Forces of the United States, a conviction for an offense committed on an Indian reservation or other federal property, a conviction in any state of the United States or a conviction in a foreign country if the foreign country’s judicial system is such that it satisfies minimum due process set forth in the guidelines under Section 111(5)(B) of Public Law 109-248. Cases on appeal are deemed convictions until reversed or overturned.”

§ 15-20A-4(4), Ala.Code 1975 (emphasis added). Thus, the legislature clearly understood when it enacted SORNA that there is a jurisdictional distinction between a federal court and a military court. When the legislature amended § 13A-11-200 in response to Radney, it could have included the phrase “or military court” as it did in § 15-20A-4(4), Ala.Code 1975; the legislature, however, did not. Thus, the legislative history of this statute establishes that a military court is not plainly encompassed within the term “federal court” in § 1BA-11-200.

Moreover, because we must, as discussed above, look at the term “federal court” as a jurisdictional term, we must consider whether a military court is a federal court for jurisdictional purposes and would, therefore, bring a military-court conviction under the purview of § 13A-11-200.

Jurisdictionally, the term “military court” is defined as “[a] court that has jurisdiction over members of the armed forces and that enforces the Code of Military Justice.” Blank's Law Dictionary 409-10 (9th ed.2009). Additionally, “[mjili-tary courts are Article I courts of limited jurisdiction, with powers defined entirely by statute,” United States v. Campbell, 71 M.J. 19, 26 (C.A.A.F.2012) (Stucky, J., concurring in the result) (citing United States v. Wuterich, 67 M.J. 63, 70 (C.A.A.F.2008)), and cannot “exercise jurisdiction beyond that granted by the applicable statutes.” Willenbring v. Neurauter, 48 M.J. 152, 157 (C.A.A.F.1998). Furthermore,

“the Supreme Court has held that Congress may not extend court-martial jurisdiction to cover civilians who have no military status in peacetime, even if they are accompanying United States forces overseas as employees or dependents. Likewise, a court-martial may not exercise jurisdiction over a former service-member whose relationship with the armed forces has been severed completely as a result of a valid discharge and who is not otherwise in a status that is subject to court-martial jurisdiction. See United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 14-15, 76 S.Ct. 1, 3-4, 100 L.Ed. 8 (1955); Smith v. Vanderbush, 47 M.J. 56, 58-59 (1997).”

Id. at 157-58. Thus, military courts have jurisdiction only over servicemembers who violate the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Federal district courts, on the other hand, are created under Article III of the United States Constitution and are also courts of limited jurisdiction. See U.S. Const, art. Ill, § 1; see also Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). Although federal district courts have jurisdiction over cases involving federal crimes, violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice are not within the statutorily defined jurisdictional limits of federal district courts and federal courts of appeal. See §§ 28 U.S.C. 1291-1369.

Additionally, as the United States Supreme Court has explained, “a military tribunal is an Article I legislative court with jurisdiction independent of the judicial power created and defined by Article III. Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 39 (1942); Whelchel v. McDonald, 340 U.S. 122, 127 (1950); Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 165 (1963).” Gosa v. Mayden, 413 U.S. 665, 93 S.Ct. 2926, 37 L.Ed.2d 873 (1973) (emphasis added).

It is logical to conclude that the legislature did not intend to include a military court when it used the term “federal court” in § 13A-11-200 because service-members subject to the jurisdiction of military courts are not afforded the same rights as civilians subject to the jurisdiction of federal courts. In Philips v. Perry, 106 F.3d 1420 (9th Cir.1997), a casé in which Philips was challenging the constitutionality of his discharge under the “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy, Judge Noonan, in a concurring opinion, explained:

“In peace as in war, in the Pentagon as on the battlefield, the military services are treated as a universe distinct from the civilian world ruled by the ordinary decisions of courts. See Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 68, 101 S.Ct. 2646, 2653-54, 69 L.Ed.2d 478 (1981).
“In acknowledgment of the special constitutional status of the military, the courts have drawn back from a literal application of all parts of the Constitution to military activities. Not only are the armed services a world where classes of citizens are distinguished by law, but they constitute a world in which justice is afforded on different terms than it is provided to civilian citizens. Parker[ v. Levy ], 417 U.S. [733] at 750, 94 S.Ct. [2547] at 2559 [(1974)].
“Before a military tribunal, a defendant’s constitutional rights are not the same as before a civilian court. There is no right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers. Kahn v. Anderson, 255 U.S. 1, 8-9, 41 S.Ct. 224, 225-26, 65 L.Ed. 469 (1921). The right of appeal from a criminal conviction is channelled and restricted. 28 U.S.C. § 1259 (certiorari to the Supreme Court from Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces); 10 U.S.C. § 867 (review by Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces); 10 U.S.C. § 866 (review by Court of Criminal Appeals). Habeas corpus does not exist in its full robustness. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 138-40, 73 S.Ct. 1045, 1046-48, 97 L.Ed. 1508 (1953). The protections of the Fourth Amendment are limited. See Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U.S. 487, 504-05, 6 S.Ct. 148, 154-55, 29 L.Ed. 458 (1885); United States v. Stuckey, 10 M.J. 347, 357, 361 (C.M.A.1981); United States v. Middleton, 10 M.J. 123, 126-27 (C.M.A.1981); United States v. Jacoby, 11 C.M.A. 428, 430-31, 29 C.M.R. 244, 246-47 (1960); Mil. RuL Evid. 311-317 (governing searches and seizures in armed forces proceedings). The vagueness test of the Fifth Amendment applies less strictly. Parker, 417 U.S. at 756, 94 S.Ct. at 2561-62. The remedies for racial discrimination are sharply and unpleasantly limited. Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 303-05, 103 S.Ct. 2362, 2367-68, 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (1983).

106 F.3d at 1431-32.

Because military courts and federal district courts have different jurisdictional limits, the term “federal court” in the jurisdictional portion of § 13A-11-200 does not include a military court. To read the statute to include a military-court conviction would be an overly broad construction and would ensnare behavior that is not “clearly proscribed.”

Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand this case to the circuit court for that court to vacate Billingsley’s conviction and sentence for failure to register under § 13A-11-200, Ala.Code 1975.

      . Section 13A-11-200, Ala.Code 1975, was repealed on July 1, 2011, by Act No. 2011-640, § 49, Ala. Acts 2011.

      . The crime of “carnal knowledge” is defined as follows:
      "Any person subject to this chapter who, under circumstances not amounting to rape, commits an act of sexual intercourse with a person (1) who is not that person's spouse; and (2) who has not attained the age of sixteen years; is guilty of carnal knowledge and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
      10 U.S.C. § 920 (1998), amended by 10 U.S.C. § 920 (2007).

      . Billingsly v. State was an appeal from an unrelated conviction involving a similar issue. Although the State’s brief relies on this Court’s memorandum affirmance in Billings-ley's previous unrelated case, we recognize that Rule 54(d), Ala. R.App. P., provides that
      "orders of affirmance or a memorandum issued by the Court of Criminal Appeals by which a judgment ... is affirmed without an opinion ... shall have no precedential value and shall not be cited in arguments or briefs and shall not be used by any court in this state, except for the purpose of establishing the application of the doctrine of law of the case, res judicata, collateral es-toppel, double jeopardy, or procedural bar."
      Thus, we review this case without regard to this Court's previous decision in Billingsly v. State.


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    In re AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.220.
    No. SC12-2235.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    May 23, 2013.
    Mark Caliel, Chair, Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, Jacksonville, FL, John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, and Heather Telfer, Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner.
    Michael A. Catalano, Miami, FL, Responding with comments.
   PER CURIAM.

In the December 20, 2012, opinion in this case, the Court adopted an out-of-cyele amendment to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b) (Prosecutor’s Discovery Obligation). The amendment was proposed by the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee (Committee) in order to conform the rule to section 92.561, Florida Statutes (2012), which prohibits the reproduction of child pornography in a criminal case. See In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220, 105 So.3d 1275 (Fla.2012). After considering the comment addressing the amendment recently filed by criminal defense attorney Michael A. Catalano, the Court further amends rule 3.220(b) to better conform to the statute.

Before the Court amended rule 3.220 in December, subdivision (b)(1) of the rule provided, in pertinent part, that “[w]ithin 15 days after service of the Notice of Discovery, the prosecutor shall ... permit the defendant to inspect, copy, test, and photograph” specified information and material in the state’s possession or control, which could include property or material that cannot be reproduced under section 92.561. The Court amended subdivision (b)(1), as proposed, to further provide that “any property or material that portrays sexual performance by a child or constitutes child pornography may not be copied, photographed, duplicated, or otherwise reproduced[.]” M at 1276. The Court allowed interested persons sixty days from the date of the opinion to comment on the amendment. Id.

After considering the one comment filed, and reviewing the requirements of section 92.561, we further amend subdivision (b)(1) to add language providing “so long as the state attorney makes the property or material reasonably available to the defendant or the defendant’s attorney” after the previously added language prohibiting the reproduction of child pornography. With this addition, the rule more closely comports with the statute which requires property or material used in a criminal proceeding that portrays sexual performance by a child or constitutes child pornography to remain in the care, custody, and control of a law enforcement agency, the state attorney, or the court and requires the court to deny a request by the defendant to reproduce such property or material “so long as the state attorney makes the property or material reasonably available to the defendant.” See § 92.561(1), (2), Fla. Stat. (2012).

Accordingly, we amend Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b) as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. New language is underscored. The amendment shall become effective immediately upon the release of this opinion.

It is so ordered.

POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

QUINCE, J., concurs in result only.

APPENDIX

RULE 3.220. DISCOVERY

(a) [No Change]
(b) Prosecutors Discovery Obligation.
(1) Within 15 days after service of the Notice of Discovery, the prosecutor shall serve a written Discovery Exhibit which shall disclose to the defendant and permit the defendant to inspect, copy, test, and photograph the following information and material within the state’s possession or control, except that any property or material that portrays sexual performance by a child or constitutes child pornography may not be copied, photographed, duplicated, or otherwise reproduced so long as the state attorney makes the property or material reasonably available to the defendant or the defendant’s attorney:
(A)-(L) [No Change]
(2) — (4) [No Change]
(c)-(o)[No Change]
Committee Notes
[No Change]
Court Commentary
[No Change]

      . See Ch.2011-220, § 4, Laws of Fla. (creating § 92.561, Fla. Stat.).

      . We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.