Altonio Spencer v. State of Alabama

2026-08-21

Summary · law.co

Holding. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Spencer's pharmacy robbery conviction but reversed his sentence, holding that the trial court must conduct a new sentencing hearing consistent with the Alabama Supreme Court's determination that discretion exists under the applicable sentencing statutes. The case was remanded for resentencing.

Altonio Spencer was convicted of pharmacy robbery and first-degree robbery. He received a life sentence without parole as a habitual felony offender. The Court of Criminal Appeals initially affirmed the pharmacy robbery conviction and sentence while reversing the first-degree robbery conviction. The Alabama Supreme Court later addressed a conflict between sentencing requirements under the Habitual Felony Offender Act and the Pharmacy Robbery Act, determining that the trial court possessed discretion to impose either life imprisonment or life imprisonment without parole. Consequently, the case returned to the trial court for reconsideration of Spencer's sentence.

On remand, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Spencer's pharmacy robbery conviction but reversed his sentence, finding it was imposed under an incorrect legal standard. The matter was returned to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing where Spencer could present arguments and be represented by counsel.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Interplay between the Pharmacy Robbery Act and Habitual Felony Offender Act sentencing requirements
Whether trial court had discretion to impose life with or without possibility of parole
Validity of sentence imposed under conflicting statutory provisions

Procedural posture

This is a direct appeal remanded from the Alabama Supreme Court after that court reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals' affirmance of Spencer's pharmacy robbery sentence and clarified the applicable sentencing framework.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Rel: August 21, 2026

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026

CR-2022-1213

Altonio Spencer

State of Alabama

Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court

(CC-18-287 and CC-18-288)

On Remand from the Alabama Supreme Court

ANDERSON, Judge.

Altonio Spencer was convicted of pharmacy robbery, see § 13A-8-51, Ala. Code 1975, and first-degree robbery, see § 13A-8-41, Ala. Code

1975. For his pharmacy-robbery conviction, the Mobile Circuit Court

CR-2022-1213

sentenced Spencer, as a habitual felony offender, to life imprisonment

without the possibility of parole.

Spencer appealed to this Court, which affirmed his pharmacyrobbery conviction and accompanying sentence. Spencer v. State, [Ms.

CR-2022-1213, June 28, 2024] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2024). This

Court reversed Spencer's conviction for first-degree robbery, however,

and remanded the case to the circuit court with instructions for that court

to vacate that conviction and sentence. On August 9, 2024, on return to

remand, after the circuit court complied with this Court's instructions,

this Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court.

The Alabama Supreme Court granted Spencer's petition for a writ

of certiorari to review this Court's determination that, because of the

interplay between § 13A-8-52(a), Ala. Code 1975 (a part of the Pharmacy

Robbery Act, § 13A-8-50 et seq., Ala. Code 1975) and the Habitual Felony

Offender Act (the "HFOA"), § 13A-5-9, Ala. Code 1975, the circuit court

lacked the discretion to sentence Spencer to either life in prison or life in

prison without the possibility of parole. Ex parte Spencer, [Ms. SC-2024-0672, May 15, 2026] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2026). Resolving the tension

that existed between the sentencing requirements of the HFOA and §

CR-2022-1213

13A-8-52(a), the Alabama Supreme Court held that the HFOA applied,

that "its terms are mandatory, and [that] under the plain terms relevant

here, the trial court had the discretion to sentence Spencer either to life

imprisonment or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole." Ex

parte Spencer, ___ So. 3d at ___. Consequently, that court reversed this

Court's judgment "insofar as [we] affirmed Spencer's sentence for

pharmacy robbery," and it remanded the case for proceedings consistent

with its opinion. Id.

Accordingly, on remand from the Alabama Supreme Court, we

affirm the judgment of the circuit court as it pertains to Spencer's

conviction for pharmacy robbery, we reverse the judgment of the circuit

court as it pertains to Spencer's sentence for his pharmacy-robbery

conviction, and we remand this matter to the circuit court for that court

to conduct a new sentencing hearing, at which Spencer shall be present

and represented by counsel.1 See Rule 26.6, Ala. R. Crim. P.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

Windom, P.J., and Kellum, Cole, and Minor, JJ., concur.

1Because Spencer has obtained the sentencing relief he originally

requested on direct appeal, he must file a new notice of appeal if he

desires to challenge the sentence imposed by the circuit court on remand.