Marshall v. State

Both the main opinion and Justice Lyons’s dissenting opinion appear to offer “responses” to the indictment in this case as if that indictment merely charges Marshall with the offense of DUI “and with having three prior DUI convictions.” 25 So.3d at 1194. The main opinion’s response to such an indictment is to hold that this is enough to allege a felony and invoke the jurisdiction of the circuit court:

“[I]f a defendant is charged in an indictment with the offense of DUI and with having three prior DUI convictions (i.e., with violating § 32-5A-191(h), Ala.Code 1975), then the DUI offense…