With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and that an application that is signed by a representative of the applicant is invalid. Additionally, in Taylor v. Cox, the Alabama Supreme Court noted that § 17-10-4, Ala.Code 1975, makes no exception or accommodation for a person physically incapable of making his or her own signature, and suggested that the Legislature reconsider the wording of the statute. Although the record indicates that Evans informed Rosia and Sharon that Sharon could sign Rosia’s name, testimony did not indicate that Evans acted willfully. “A ‘willful’ act may be described as one ‘done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.’ ” Padgett v. State, 36 Ala.App. 355, 357, 56 So.2d 116 (1952) (<HOLDING>). In Parker v. Sutton, 47 Ala.App. 352, 254

A: holding that defendant did not admit facts supporting sentencing enhancement where he lodged blakely objection and replied no sir to courts inquiry as to whether he had objections to anything contained or omitted from the presentence report
B: holding that while registering to vote a defendant who falsely replied that he had never been convicted of a crime did so as the result of inadvertence or ignorance and his action did not constitute a willful act of perjury
C: holding that a statute imposing a one dollar court cost for law enforcement on every person convicted of a crime was not a violation of the separation of powers doctrine because it is reasonable that one convicted of a crime should be made to share in the improvement of agencies that society has had to employ in defense against the very acts for which he has been convicted
D: holding district court dismissal of plaintiffs present action did not constitute prior action  and thus did not count as third strike
B.