of 46 /46
'. '·! .·;' Chapter 3 .l r Alabama:1· . l .. , rl .. § 3:1 § 3:2 § 3:3 § 3:4 § 3:5 § 3:6 §3:7 § 3:8 . § 3:9 § 3:10' § 3:11 § 3:12 § 3:13 § 3:14 § 3:15 §3:16 § 3:17 § 3:18 § 3:19 '§3:20 §3:21 §3:22 § 3:23 §3:24 § 3:25 § 3:26 §3:27 §3:28; §3:29 §.3:30' § 3:31 § 3:32 §3:33 §3:34 § 3:35 §3:36-· Summary of postconViction remedies· in Alabama Alabama Rl.ile of Criminal Procedure 82 . · r -Purpose and nature-Case law· , -Right to counsel - -Case law·. . : ' t .. J . -Grounds for relief·. I ' -Statute of limitations.· --Case law -Filing . -Raising claims that were or could have been raised at trial or .on direct appeal. or. in previous· :a.ule 32 petition -Text of Rule 32.1 --Case Law -Text of Rule 32.2 -32.2(ah:Preclusion of law .. , -32.2(c)-Limitations-Case law . . . -32.2(d)-Ineffective assistance. of ·counsel.., .... Case law . --Case law -Text of Rule 32.4 --Case Law ., • . . . ) : ' ' . ' j \ : -Text qf Rule ; : .. -Text of Rule 32.6 - -Commencement of law -Text of Rule 32,7 . - -32. of pleadings-Case. law - -32. 7(d)-Summary disposition-Case law .-Text ofRuie.$2.8. ·· --Text of Rule 32.9.. . . ..;,,_ -Evidentiary hearing-Case law -Rule 32.10: Appeals r: · · · - -Text of Rule 32.10 ---Case law . Writ of error coram I ;, ,•; Writ of habeas corpus . . . -Case law regarding :corlVictions· and postconviction ,claims ·· . , . ·47

Alabama:1· - POST-CONVICTION...Alabama:1· - POST-CONVICTION ... of

  • Author

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)

Text of Alabama:1· - POST-CONVICTION...Alabama:1· - POST-CONVICTION ... of

  • '. '·! .·;'

    Chapter 3 .l r


    . l .. , rl ..

    § 3:1 § 3:2 § 3:3 § 3:4 § 3:5 § 3:6 §3:7 § 3:8

    . § 3:9 § 3:10'

    § 3:11 § 3:12 § 3:13 § 3:14 § 3:15 §3:16 § 3:17 § 3:18 § 3:19

    '§3:20 §3:21 §3:22 § 3:23 §3:24 § 3:25 § 3:26 §3:27 §3:28; §3:29 §.3:30' § 3:31 § 3:32 §3:33 §3:34 § 3:35 §3:36-·

    Summary of postconViction remedies· in Alabama Alabama Rl.ile of Criminal Procedure 82 . · r -Purpose and nature-Case law· , -Right to counsel - -Case law·. . : ' t .. J . ~ -Grounds for relief·. I ' ~ -Statute of limitations.· --Case law -Filing . -Raising claims that were or could have been raised at trial or .on direct appeal. or. in previous· :a.ule 32 petition

    -Text of Rule 32.1 --Case Law -Text of Rule 32.2 -32.2(ah:Preclusion of rem~dy--:Case law .. , -32.2(c)-Limitations-Case law . . . -32.2(d)-Ineffective assistance. of ·counsel..,....Case law -~of Rul~,3.2.3,:· . --Case law -Text of Rule 32.4 --Case Law ., • . . . ) ~ : ' ' . ' j \ : -Text qf Rule 3~.(> ; : .. -Text of Rule 32.6 - -Commencement of action~ase law -Text of Rule 32,7 . - -32. 7(b~Aillendment- of pleadings-Case. law - -32. 7(d)-Summary disposition-Case law .-Text ofRuie.$2.8. ~ ·· --Text of Rule 32.9.. . . ..;,,_ -Evidentiary hearing-Case law -Rule 32.10: Appeals r: · · · - -Text of Rule 32.10 ---Case law

    . Writ of error coram nobis-~ I ;, ,•; Writ of habeas corpus . . . -Case law regarding :corlVictions· and 'sentenc~s:. ~urisdictional. postconviction ,claims ·· . , .


  • I

    § 3.:37 I

    §3:38 §3:39


    § 3:41 §3:42

    §3:43 §3:44

    i §i:45

    §~:46 § 3:47 §3:48

    §3:49 §3:50

    § 3:51

    § 3:52 § 3:53

    §3:54 § 3:55 § a:5s

    §3:57 § 3:58


    -Claims unrelated to the validity of the conviction or sentence

    --Case law. -Difference between Alabama Rule of Criminal

    Procedure 32 and habeas corpus relief -Postconviction habeas corpus relief which does not

    affect the conviction or sentence-Unconstitutional revocation of a suspended sentence

    - -Denial of proper credit for time spent in jail - -Due process violations committed in prison disciplinary proceedings ·

    - -Denial of proper good time credit - -State has incorrectly calculated the amount of

    time the inmate must serve in prison - -Due process violations committed by prison

    officials -Filing -Venue-Case law -May not be used to obtain review of. actions of the

    Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles Writ of certiorari · ·. ' -Case law regarding review of actions of parole

    officials -Case law regarding review of actions of prison

    officials r , • Motion to correct void sentence Motion to correct clerical error under Alabama Rule of

    Criminal Procedure 29 Postconviction DNA testing statute -Text of Ala. Code§ 15-18-200 Postconviction DNA testing under Alabama 'Code § 15-18-200-Case law · · ; · ·

    Erroneous Convictions Act -Text of Ala. Code §§ 29-2-150 to 29-2-165

    · KeyCite®: Cases and other legal materials listed in KeyCite Scope can he researched -through the KeyCite service on Westlaw®. ·Use KeyCiie to check citations for form, parallel references, prior and later history, and comprehen-sive citator information, including citations to .other decisions and secondary materials. -

    § 3:1 Summary of postconviction remedies ·in.Alabama

    Principal postconviction re~edy: . :,

    Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. Proc., remedy. This remedy is applied


  • ALABAMA §:8:2

    for. in the convicting court. The remedy is. an independent civil action, not. a postsentencing phase ·of the original criminal case. The remedy is· authorized by a judicially promulgated· court· rule. There is no custody requirement·in Rule 32 proceedings. Newly discovered evidence of innocence is a ground for relief under Rule 32~ . • :• , I

    Right to counse~ .· . , , , . . . . . . · . ~here is no right to counsel in Rule. 32 proceeding~, .even In death sentence cases. Appointment of counsel in Rule. 32 proceed-ings is discretionary.

    Statute of limitations: O~e.year ·

    •. ·' \'

    Secondary postconviction.remedies: . . . · i , Habeas corpus Certiorari (to review decisions ·of parole board and prison ·of-

    ficials) . · : . ., · Motion to· correct void sentence Motion to correct ~clerical error .


    . Other remedies: , .. Coram no bis is .no longer an available. postconvicti~n remedy in

    Alabama . Alabama has a postconviction DNA testing statute, which is

    codified at Ala.· Code§ 15-18-200 ~ '. · Alabama has an 'erroneous convictions act, ·enacted in· 2001

    ~elp~ re~clliigs·: : (1) Note: Postconviction Remedies in Alabama, 29 Ala.· L.Rev.

    617(1978) . . (2) Cates, Post Conviction Remedies, 28 Ala. ~L. :257 (1967). : : '. (3) Tyson, Whither: On Habeas, 24 Ala. L. 271 (1963) . ,' (4) Jones, Habeas Corpus, State and Federal~ 13 Ala.' Law . .189.

    (1952) . ~. . (5) Comment: The Writ. of Error Coram Nobis in Alabama, 2

    Ala.L.Rev. 281(1950) (6) H. Maddox, Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure§§ 32.0

    et seq. (3rd .. ed;. 1999) :• ·, (7) Mcconville, The Meaninglessness of Delayed ;Appointments

    ~nd Discretionary Grants. of Capital Postconviction. Co~sel, 42 Tulsa L.,Rev. 253 (2Q06) . ' ,. . . .~ · : .. · . · · .. -

    § 3:2 Alabama Ji~~ of crimiD~·~ro~e~W.e·'~~~·:· "·:·:;:, •\' The principal postconviction remedy in Alabamais :the remedy



    in !the. nature.bf coram nobis ·authorized· by ·Rule··32 .. of.·tb.e·Ala-bama Ru:les· 1of'Criminal Procedure, which was -adopted:.1on· May 31~ 1990,• .and' became ~ffifotive· on Jan,\· 1, J.991.·The .. remedy is available in the convicting court. \ . " .·i :'. . , • ,.: ; • ..

    : ~though the·postconviction remedy ·created by .Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. Proc., is undoubtedly indebted in part to the 1980 version of the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act {UPCPA), Rule 32 also contains. provisions obnoxious to the spirit and purpos~;- inot to mention.11 the ·letter; of the "UPCPA; For' -example/ Rule 32 provides 'that "[t]he court shall· rtot ;grant relief: on a :second or successive petition on the same or similar ground8'01r .. behalf.of the petitioner." Rule 32.2(b), Ala. R. Ci:im~. r~PC?~ose .: : ., ... and.t~ature·Calite law ... ··

    . I ·Fat 1c'as·0- lavh>ti the compreh~~sive' purpose and natur~ of Rule 32, see, e.g., Ex parte Jenkins, to5 So. 3d 1250 (Ala. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S .. Ot. 1634, 185 .. L. Ed. 2d 620 (2013) (death senten_ce case; petitionerti1i"a··pos'tc'onviction-relief procee'd.ingiis' entitled· to relief in any:factualiscenari9 when the record before·the:Supreme



  • I ALABAMA:'. § 3:3

    Q_oµrt clearly establishes. that the order signed· by the trial court denying. postconviction, relief ls not,;the product of !the trial ,court's · indep,endent Judgment); $x. par.te S~ott;. 2011.WL 925761. (Ala. 2011) Cit is axiomatic• that an ·order. ~anting or. denying, relief under Ala~- R. Crim.-,.P. Rule 82, .must be, ,an. oi:der of the .. trial court; it must. b~·:a. manifestation· of the findings :·and conclusions of the court;. although no authority ·other; than the creation of the judieial branch: and the delegation of judicial authority.to-the circuit"courts of this State in·'the Ala~. Const~ Art IV, § l39(a)~is necess·a:ry to iStipport· this propo'sition; the provisions of.Ala:~ :J:t Crim~ ·p, Rule-.32.1 to 32;1o;~!also·-provide ·support; anjong othe;r things,' Rule· 32.7(d) states that if the;~·co\lrt determine~· certain matters to: be· true, it' may , sllril1ttarily dismiss the' petition; Rule . 32.9(c) provides: that if.the court finds in·fiivot of the petitioner, it shall'e.nter an· ':appropriat~·;arder; ·R.ule 32_.9(d) state~ that~th¢ court ·shall make specific findings f fa~t· relatingto each niatetial issue ·of 'fact· presented; and ·Rule 32~ 10 ·refers 'fo ·the. decision of a · circuit coil.rt; . although niinot' factual ·E!iT.or~ uriderstari.ciably ·find their. way irito 'orders drafted, 'by '#iSJ. co'u~t~ I in' h~ndl1ng. busy dbcketS·~- an error. as to 'whethet'thifjudge in fact 'sat as· the' tnal J\idge iµ a -capital~m.u.rder ·tii~rand 1,s ;ha~iilg :;111~ d_e'cisi~n '_btj. personal' ob~erva#QhS and· perS~Jl.al knp~Je~g~ acquired :by1 ~oirig so is the ·mo'st. mat~dal S:nd' obvio~s -'of; ~rr6rs; trial . court's verbatim adoption of· state~s answer;· iil 58-page 'order summarily denyiµg d~fendanes petition for postconvi.ctiqn relief, violateq requir~ment that ·an·· order· granting or 1 denjring _ postconviction relief be a manifestation of the findings and corrchisiOns of the court;· Qr~~r at issue was __ a:judici~l.incorp~i;~tion,.of:a -party's plea:qYiiction,, :QlOtion. ·.adopted. State's proposed .,ord~r,i w,hich .stated: th.at-judge wasJ>asing. dep.ia:l in

    · part o:q obsezy~tion~ made~:duting defendant's crimi~al trial, but judge had in fact .nqt presid~d ~over. th&:i:t trial: and th~ originai trial judge.had jn fact.,ret..U7~.d .pmor ·to defendant's postco)l.victj.op.


  • I

    , I

    §.3:3 I



    re}ief motion); Pruitt v. State, 26 So. 3d .1272 (Ala .. Crim. App: 2qo9) ·(proper method for making claim of ineffective.· assistance of1 tria:l counsel was to file petition for postconviction relief,· and, th:U,s; circuit court improperly found that petitioner sho_uld have ra~sed such allegations on direct appeal, where petitioner's appel.:. late counsel did not have access to record on appeal in time: to raise ineffective assistance of trial·counsel allegations within 30 ci~ys after sentencing); Ex parte Carruth~ 21 So .. 3d 770: (Ala. 2009)· (death :sentence case; for a defendant who .is sentenced to d~ath. and who failed to timely file· a petition in. this Court. for a w~t of certiorari to review.· th~ d~cisio;n of the Court .of Criminal Appe~ls; the proper means to request pe~ission to fil~ an out,of-tiipe petition. is.to mak~ th~:·fi9qu~st in a Rule 2(b), AJ.a. R.App. P.hmQtion in .this Coll;rt· aµd ~ot i;n a"Rule 32 petitioµ in. ~he trial coµ.rt); E~ pa~te R. W.F., 985 So. 2d. ~96 y wh~ch defendant, .11cting.pro.se, coµld.advl:lnce claim that his couns~~;with~ew from·.~ase at a thµe making a ti.niely prose

    · a~peal of. criminal convi~tiotj.s impossi~le was through. petition for ·postco~yictfon reli~f, ~ot· petition for wri~ of certiora~i); Ex pqrt,e Chandler, 910 So. 24 .763(Ala .. 2005) (under Rule,'mt4, a.ny otper postconviction petitiQn: 'seeking relief .from a: conviction .or septe~ce ~h~ll 'be trea~ed as a :proceeding qnder Rule 32;. here, ~ne c1rcu1t court co,rrectly conclµ4ed that Chandler's haqeas corpus petition.sh9u1~·~e t~eated.a.~ ~Rule 32 petitipn).. .

    § ~:4 Alabam~.Rwe,of Cr~fual P~ced~e· 3~~Right to . 1. . counsel'. . .. : , . · -~ · · · · · .·; · · . . .. · .

    1There is no righ~ ~o counsel in Rule 32 proceedings. Under

    Rule 32.7(c), Ala~·:R. Crim.-· Proc.,. entitled "Appointment of C~unsel," appointment of counsel for persons applying for Rule 32 .relief is·discretionary~ Rule 32.7(c) provides· that '~[i]f the court dc}es not summarily dismiss. the petition,· and if it appears that th'.e petitioner is indigent 01". otherwise unable to . obtain the assis-talnce of counsel and desires the assistance 'Of counsel, and it fur-tHer appears that ·counsel1 is necessary to assert or. protect the rights of the petitioner, the· court shrul appoint counsel." Alabal:!la statutory· law authorizes but· does not 'require, appointment and payment· of counsel to represent indigents·· who apply· for state p6steonviction relief in Alabama. See Ala. Code § t5-12-23. Ala. C9de § 15-12~23(a) provides that in proceedings in the district or circuit court involving the: life and liberty'· of thos·e convicted of s~rious criminal offenses including ·proceedings for habeas corpus

    . and other postconviction: remedies, and' in appeals in such p:r;oceedings, the court may appoint counsel to represent persons so convicted if it appears to the court that the convicted person is unable financially to obtain counsel and desires the assistance of


    5, I

  • ALABAMA § 3:5

    counsel and it further appears· that counsel is necessary to assert or protect the convicted person's· rights. Ala. Code § 15-12-23(d) provides for 1fi.nancial ·compensation for counsel so appointed. Under Rule 32. 7(c) and Ala. ·code § 15-12-23(d), appointment of cotln~el in Rule 32 proceedings and in postconviction habeas corpus proceedings is discretionary; and 1 therefore' there is no right to co~nsel in Rule 32 or habeas corpus proceedings. , .

    § 3:5 Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32-Right to · · counsel-Case law

    For case law on appointment· of counsel for indigents .se~king Rule 32 relief, see, e.g., Arthur v. Allen, 452 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2006),opinion modified on reh'g, 459 F.3d 1310 .(11th ·Cir. 2006) (death sentence case; Alabama provides for the appointment .of counsel for a· petitioner seeking postconviction relief; under Rule 32. 7(c), Ala. R. Crim. Proc., an indigent: petitioner; who desires the assistance of counsel, may seek appointment of courisel if the petitioner's postconviction: relief petition is not· summarily dismissed; although Alabama suggests· that· a postconviction petitioner need only fill in the form Rule 32 petition to obtain ap-pointed; counsel, that form does not provide any information or questions regarding the need for appointment of counsel); Barbour v. Haley, 410 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (M.D. Ala. 2006), .aft'd, 471 F.3d 122~ (11th Cir. 2006) (Alabama's failure to provide counsel to indigent death row~inmates fqr·investigation and preparation of postconviction challenges to their.convictions did not violate their federal constituti~nal right qf meaningful access· to courts; Ala.Code § .. 15-9-38 addresses access to counsel and gives a person the right to be:.represented by legal.counsel in a habeas:cotj>us pro.ceeding; this.statute.does not, however, expressly require that such person be -rep~es~nted by co~rt-appointed coun~el if he is unable to ~mploy counsel; the Al~bEµna Rule$ of C~nal Proce-dure permit a trial cou.r~ to app~int co·unsel to represent ai;t indigent .Petitioner in· a postconviction proceeding if it "appears that counsel is necesE;;ary to assert or protect the rights of the petition~r," Rule 32.7(c), Ala. R.Crim. Proc.; such an appointment occurs oµly ~fter a petition h~s bee:q filed; therefore., inmates who are ·unable. to find counsel to ~epresent them before the lintita-tions perio.d ·for filing a Rule. 32 petition expires, including inmates -who are mentally ill, illiterate, or mentally retarded, must' determine the date by ~hich they must file their Rule 32 petition and prepare and file a petition in the ·proper form with the proper claim~ in ~he proper court); Ex parte Cox, 451 So. ·2d 235 (Ala·. 1983) (there is no requirement that indigent defendant be provided counsel with respect to postconviction proceedings; the granting or: denying of court-appointed counsel for petitioner



    on appeal to the Court of Criminal Appe~ls from .denial -of a peti-tion: for writ-. of error coramrhobis .was -discretionary with the trial ju~ge); McWilliams, v. State, 897 -So. 2d ·437 (Ala. ~rim. App. · 20PA).!(overruled on ·other grounds :by,. Ex parte Jenkins;; 972. So. 2df 159 (Ala .. -2005)) (death sentence. case;. it.is clear under Ala-bama law .that there .is no requirement that indigent petitioners · bel furnished .. counsel regarding. postconviction, proceedbigsk.See also Post, "In Alabama, Some Inmates Don't Have Lawyers as They Near.the-Last Bid forLifet1Nat'l L. J-., p.·, l&l;>ec: .. 1,, 2003).,.

    I , i, • •

    § ~'.6: :J:~:Uef Rul~ o~ p~ Proeedw:e ~bG~~ds ~ i.. : " • ' • ; ' • \ ; • • • • ~ • : ! ..•

    _· .f.rhe grounds for_ Rule 32 relief from a .-conviction or a e;entence include:: (1) 1violations·:of constitutional :rights; (2)jurisdictional errors; (3) newly: discovered eviden.ce; (4) the sentence is]rLexcess of:the:statutory maximum:or-is otherwise unauthorized by-law; ~di·(5) denial of.direct:appeah ,Claims that· the convicted -person is~bei,ngheld·!n,cus~odyafter the expir~tion of his o:r hef~sentence a~: also. co~zable ,m :Rule 3? _pro.ceedings. _ ; . . ; 1· :. '. ::• ~ , •. ·• '.}

    _For case.law on grounds for- relief,. see .e.g., Ex parte·.W&lker, 152 So. 3d 124 7 ·(Ala.~ 2014) (when· court grants a' p_etitionerJpost: conviction ·relief. from an' ill_egal .sentence, by ord.ering' '.a 'new· s~:ntencing h~atj.ng·, .. the ·co"Q.rt;: Witl!oq.t cijsturbing.the :conviction, r.etur:Qis juN,diction-.over the u~derlyip.g crlntlna:l,matter tQ the -~at court, for, the ,purpose. pf conducting. a 1 p.ew seµten~ng he~ing: SAd. pz:on;ou~cing1 a -!1~w ~eµ~~n~e;. co}i~t'.s ~~qt ,of_.~';new s~tenc1:qg he~rmg r~y1ves .the, up.derlymg qr1m.mal ~~t.ter, a4tho+,izirig the .trial.court to conduct·~ .s~:µ~encing h~anng, ii1de~ pe_nd~nt of ~he postcoriVictfon relief :actiori, ~and. ;~o _-~~sente~w~ · ,tJJ.e 4~~en,da~t,· if ~ppropriate);~.L~_ttle .v~ B_ta.te,_.1~.~ So. ~d- ~l~:.(41~· Cnm.. A'.pp .. 2012) (a defendant· w~o is· not sentenced m a~corda~ce with· hi$ plea agreement inay ~fruse ~u~h [email protected] fo~. tlie '.first time _in. a timely filed petition· for ·postconvfotion relief pur~~ant to R-tile '32, Ala. · R.Crim. · P .);•Ex parie Ward, 89 So .. 3d 72'0 (Ala~ 2q1t)· (rule' allowing. postconvfctic~n. relief on ba~1s: otr new~y di~covered ·evide11;ce requires a showing-that tJ:ie' n~wly discovered facts go tb the' issue of the defendant's actuar innocell:ce,:·as' op:.. p'c)sed fa a procedtiral Violation ·not dir~ctly hearing d~ ·giµlt or' in-nocence;· ·rtewly discovered forensic test results controve~d 1what a~peared from the record to. b.e the" pnly physical' evidence liilking d.efend:aht to the crime scene~: and tended,: if proven, .to 'destroy-or obliterate key physical eviden~e upon whlch the State relied)~ · · :

    ,. ! , 1 ~ - ! I ~ • , , f .' ,' ~ ; ' _• j ; t _ : .' . . 1 ; .~ :

    §'~:'1. ~::!!We of Crimin~ .Pro~d~e,S~ta~te ?f

    · :Th~re. is,a one,year statute o(limit~tio~s on applying f~r Rule 54!


  • §:3.:11

    32 relief. The. limitations .period- begins running when the Ala-bama 9ourt of Criminal Appeals issues its certificate of judgment on the direct appeal; if ther&~wasjno direct appeal, "the 'period begins to:run when t~e tim.~ for filing tP.e: direct .appeaj.' lapses. The one-yea~ .time JimitatioJ!, has. been in ~ff~ct.siQ.ce ~ug. 1, 20()2. Prior to Aug .. l, 2002, th.e Rule 32 statute of limitations pe-riod was two years. ·

    ·§ 3:8 ·Alabama Rule: of driminai ~ocedure ·32-Statute of · limitatiOns--Oase law· . '· · . . . . .. , . · . ·, _

    , ·, Ex parte Martinez, 75 So~. 3d 616 (Ala. ·2009) (rule 32.2(c) establishes a· limitations perlo~d for filing a petition for:postconvic-tion relief on the grounds specified in Rule 32.l(a) and (fl, and if · there is a direct 1appeaLfrom the conviction to the Court of Crim-inal Appeals, the Rule 32 petition should be filed within one year of the isauance by that court of a.~ertificate of judgment on the petitioner's direct appeal). . ...

    § 8:9 Alabama. Rule ·~r Criminal .;t?J;~cedlire 82~FilU;ig A Rule 32 proceeding is initiated by filing ·a Rule 32 petition for

    .postconviction· relief in the convicting court. The Rule 321petition of a prison inmate acting pro se is ·deemed filed when: the inmate gives the petition. to prison. authorities for mailing, .not when the convicting court :receives the petition. Allen v. State, 1 825 So. 2d 264 (Ala. Crim;.App. 2001); judgment aft'd, :825 So. 2d 271 (Ala. 2002). A model forni of Rule -32 petition is'. contained' in the Ap-pendix ta Rule 32. · · 1 · •· : •

    § 3:10 Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure· 82--Raising . claims. that were or could have be~n raised at trial or on direct appeal or in.previous Rule 32.petition

    Generally~ Rule'32. cannot be· used to raise claims that were or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal. A second or subsequent Rule· 32 petition filed by the petitioner shall be denied if it raises a clailn raised in the previous. Rule '32 petition; if the claim was ilot raised in the previous Rule 32 petition, the succes-sive petition shall also be denied, except in: a


    56 I I


    RULE: 32.1 SCOPE OF REMEDY . I , Subject to the limitations of :Rule '32.2, any defendant' who ha.s ·been convicted of a c·riminal offense may· in~titute: a proceeding in the court of original conviction· to secure appropri-ate relief on the ground that:

    A petitiQn that challenges multiple judgments entered. in more than a single trial ·or guilty-plea ··proceeding shall be dismissed without prejudice. ·· "

    (a) -The .constitution :of the United States ·or of the State of Alabama.requires .a:new trial, a new sentence proceed-ing, or other relief. , ·

    (b) The court was.without·jurisdiction to render judg-. . ment or to impose sentence. ,

    (c) The sentence imposed exceed·s ihe maximum autho-rized by law or is otherwise not authorized by law;

    .(d) The petitioner is being held in custody after the petitioner's sentence has expired. · ·' · '

    (e) Newly discovered material facts· exist which require . that the conviction ·or sentence be vacated by the c.ourt, ·because:

    (1) The f~cts relied upon· were· not known by the petitioner or the petitioner's counsel at the time of trial or sentencing or in time to file a pos~trial motion pursu-ant to Rule 24, or in time to be included in any previous collateral proceeding and could not have been. discovered by ~Y of those times through the exercise of reasonable diligence; · · (2) The facts are not·merely cumulative -to other facts that were known;

    (3} The facts do not merely amount. to imp~achment evidence;

    (4) If the facts had been known at the time of trial or of sentencing, the result probably would have. been dif-ferent;.~d .· ·

    (5) The facts establish that the petitioner is innocent of the crime for which the petitioner was convicted or should not have received the sentence that the petitioner receiv:ed. (f) The petitioner failed to appeal within. the prescribed

    time and that failure was.w~thout fault on the petitioner's part. . ' . .

    . '

  • ALABAMA § 3:12

    § 3:12 Alabaina Rule of Criminal Procedure 32-Text of Rule 32.l~ase Law . . ·

    For case law on the sco.pe.of postConviction relief, see e.g.~ Ex parte Williams,.· ~015 WL· 1388138 (Ala. 2015) (United States Supreme Court decision Miller v. Alabama, determining that Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punish-ment precluded mandatory life sentences without. parole· for defendants convicted· of offenses committed while they were under age 18, did not ·apply retroactively to .cases that became final before its pron9uncement; rule in Miller was not a new substan-tive rule,, but .rather s~t forth procedural rule by proscribing the permissible methods by which states could exercise their continµ-ing power to punish juvenile defendants by imposing a sentence of life imprisonment without the· possibility of parole); ·ex parte Sockwell, 140 So~ 3d 945 (Ala. 2013) ·(a claim. that a petitioner's constitutional rights were violated.under· Brady may be ·alleged under Rule 32.l(a), Ala. RCrim. P., and ·not be required fo meet the· elements of ·a claim of newly discovered materiaI facts under Rule 32.l(e)); Ex parte Walker,· 152 So. 3d 1247 (Ala. 2014) (rule governi~g postconviction relief permits a circuit court to grant petitioner relief from an illegal sentence by authorizing the circuit court, without disturbing the underlying conviction, to vacate the petitioner's sentence and order. a new sentencing. hearing; deter.• mination to grant or to deny :postconviction ·relief and the propriety of the new sentence. are· two: distinct· judicial· mattets: petitioner's new sentence is the result of a complete and indepen-dent proceeding, and the legality of the. new sentence is not the subject of the · postconviction relief proceeding in which the new sentencing hearing. was granted); Musgrove; v. State,. 144 So. ad 410 (Ala. Crim. App_. 2012), cert. denieq, (Nov. 22, 201~) (before the allegations of newly discovered evidence in a Rule 32 petition can be considered, they ID;ust .me~t all five. req~emen~ qf Ru~e 32.l(e)); Ex parte Ma;.p,n, .56 .So. 3d 726 (Ala. 2010) (motion. for suspension of rules in the Supreme . Court, and not a pos~coriviq~ tion motion in the trial court, .is ·~he pz:oper method for .. ob~ainil'.lg permission to.file an Qut-of-time petition for i;i writ ofc,ertiorari· to Supr~me Co~rt 'to review the. de~isiQ~ of t~e Court of Qriminal Appeals· ip. a· crim~nal, 'case in_ which the p~~it~oner has be~n sente·n.ced to d~ath); Ex parte Peterson, 40 So. 3d 679 (Ala. 2009) (all actions of' the circuit court.with regard to"litiga'tion of petitioner's Rule 32 petition afte~ the ·circuit court granted his Rule 32 petition·are void; "[a]though ·the dismissal of P[etitioiier]'s appeal may seem to be a waste of judicial resources, "neither this Court nor the Court of Criminal Appeals has the authority to grant the circuit court jurisdiction it did not have"); Ex parte Landers, 53 So. 3d 877 (Ala. 2009) (defendant's notice of appeal



    of 1

    dismissal :bf his. petition for. postcon~iction relief• was timely• though it was filed more than 42 days .foHowing .initial order di$missil}g. p~ti.tio~, as trial ~ol;lr;t $_~Q~equ~n,t~y entered orqer v~~ating i¢tial dismissal order, sµc~}>r· that Qase. wa~ rein$tated in ~ c~U;rt, ,·fl~d, at that time, def~nqant did n9t; pav:e, ~ ·fin~l j~dg~~~t .f:romrwhjch ~o. appe*11, and: it was· .not _.u11-til.,,tr.ial court entered. or~er. purporting to vacate its order. ,vacating· initjal dis· m~ssal order and p.urporting. to.· reinstate 'initial dismissal order that defendant. had a final judgment fro~ ;which 'to' ·a.ppe~l); Cl.emons. v~ Btate,-29 So. 3d 181 (Ala. Civ. App.: 2009) (0outt of Civil App.ea~s; is witho~t· juri~diction ito ·entertain ·any issues conceritlng the· validity of El trial court's judgment of conviction, orlits' sentence, such as might be raised'in 8: .Postconviction peti-tion); Duck v·. State, 27. So


    ~ ~cl 614

  • I :: . r·. § 3:13

    § 3:13 · Alabama ·Rule of Criminal Procedure·'3~Text of Rule32.2 ... , - ' .

    •:_; .,.

    RULE· 32.2 PRECLUSION OF REMEDY . (a)· Pr~chisiOti of µrollhds.A'petitloner~ll .not ~e giverd·elief un~e:r; this.rule.based upon anY,·gtqund: ·· 1 . ••.· .•.·. .

    (1) Which may still be~rais~d ·on: direct ·appeal ll;n


    petition based on the grounds ·specified in Rule 32.l(e) unless the petition is filed within the applicable one-year period speci-


    'fied in the first sentence of this section, or within six (6) months 1

    after the discovery of the newly qiscovered material ·facts, _,whichever is later; provided, howev~r, that the on~-year period rduring which a petition may be brought ~shall)n 110 ca~e. be I deemed to have begun. to run before the effective date of the

    · • preclirsor of this rule, i.e., April 1, 1987. · ' · (d) Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Any claim that counsel was ineffective must be raised as: soon as ·practi-. cable, either at trial, on direct appeal, or. in the first Rule 32 petition1 .whichever is .applicable. In nQ .ev~:µt. can relief be granted on a cl~ 9f ineffective assistance of trial or appellate l counsel raised in a successi'~e petit~()n .

    . i . ' .. '

    § 3:14 ' Alabama 'Ruie of 'Crimin&l Procedure 32-32~2(a)-: · · PreclusiOn ·of remedy~Case law · ·:

    .For case law on preclusion ofr~medy ~nder Rule· S2(a); s.~e e.g., E,x parte Martinez, 75 So. 3d 616 (Al~. ~00,9) (although the Rules of Criminal Procednre. initially· place the'. ;burden e>n; the ·~tate to plead any ground· of preclusion, t~e ultimate burden· is on the p~titioner to disprove that ·a. grou~d of precl~s,oh app~es; because the limitatio;ns provision is mandatory and app~es iri.~ b~t ~he most extraordinary of circumstances, when a petiti,dn is time-b~ed on its. face the petitfoner bears t~e burden of demonstrat-i~g in hi$ petition that tpere, are.· such extraordinary circum-stances justifying t~e appHc.ation of ,the d

  • ALABAMA § 3:15

    but was not, raised and addressed at trial a.l'.ld on appeal; 'a claim that a defendant was' not afforded the opportunity· to address the court before .the sentence is. imposed is not a jurisdictional claim); Apicella v. State,. 945 So. 2d 485 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) (death sentence case; claim in petition for postconviction relief that trial court failed to conduct individualized ·sentencing determination when it overrode jury's recommended sentence for capital murder and instead imposed death ·sentence could not have· been raised on direct appeal, for purpose of determining whether claim was procedurally barred; petitioner was entitled to evidentiary hear-ing on his claim); Butler v. State, 942 So. 2d 389 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005) (petitioner's contention in postconviction r~lief petition.that trial 'court lacked jutjsdict~on to accept ·his pleas to charges Qf burglary arid rape because info~ations filed by district. attorney were ;not ·made under oath raised jurisdfotional issue that was not procedurally barred by defendant's failure to raise issue on appeal). · · · · · · ·

    § 3:15 Alabama RUie of Criminal Procedure 32-32.2(c)~· · Limitation ..... Case la'Y · · · · · . ., . · · · ' · ·

    For case law oil the Rule 32.2(c), limitations, see e.g., Crayton v. State, ·949 So. 2d 976 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) (jurisdictional claims are not: precluded by the limitations period or by the ·rule against successive Rule· 32 petitions; we recognize that Crayton raised this same double jeopardy claim in a previous Rule 32 pe- · tition; .however, because the claim is jurisdictional, it .is' .not subject to the procedural ;bars in Rule 32.2);' Gaddy v. State, 952 So. 2d 1149 (Ala. Crim• App. 2006) (death sentence case; ineffec-tive counsel claim; the plain error rule does not apply to postcon-viction proceedings, even if the case involves the death sentence; procedural bars of postconviction rule apply with equal· force to all cases, including those in which the: death penalty has been imposed; petitioner was :precluded from arguing that he was entitled to new trial because his defense attorneys had less than five years'. experience in the active practice of criminal law, where issue ·could have been- raised at trial or on appeaD; ·Barclay v. State, 39 So. 3d 209 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008) (defendant's postcon~ viction claim, alleging that trial court lacked subject-matter juris-diction because the jury and venire and··petit jury were not sworn in. before trial, was jurisdictional, and not procedurally barred· by the limitation period in Rule 32.2(c)); Ex parte Borden, 60 So. 3d 940 (Ala. 2007) (trial court's ruling that b,oth of postconviction relief petitioner's juror-misconduct claims were procedurally barred was- an adverse ruling for the Court of Criminal Appeals to review pursuant to Rule 32.2(a)(3, 5)); Robey v_.. State, 950 So. 2d 1235 (Ala. Crim~ App. 2006) (failure of trial court to advise



    defendant of 1his or her right to ·appeal a .guilty plea conviction anq to have ·counset appointed · oli appeal if he. or· she· is ·indigent is not a defect. that impacts the jurisdiction. of the ·.trial· court for purposes' of postconviction relief; because Hobey's claim does not il:llplicate ithe·jurisdiction of the~ trial· court, it is time~barred by Rrile '32~2(c),

  • ALABAMA I ' ' .~ • ) .I '§'3:18

    proceeding must show that, ·but for counsel's errors, 1the defendant would not have 1 pleaded guilty but1would have 'in~isted on proceeding to trial); Exparte Green;l5'.So.:3d 489.(Ala.··2008Hto obtain postconviction relief on a claim of ineffective assistance ·_of counsel, a defendant must .prove (1) that ·ccmnsel did not provide reasonably effective assistance and {2) tliat counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the .defendant; when .considering a claim of ineffective .assistance of cdunsel, counsel's. performance is: mea-sured.· against an. objective· staddard1.9f reasonableness);. Jtx. parte Robey,.920Bo. 2d~l069 (Ala. :2004) (Rule 32.2(b),.with·some,exeep-tions, ·.generally· precludes ·a· :trial ·court: :from ·granting.; relief -pur-suant to a successiv~ Rule 32 petitio::µ; ·one" such exception. isl ap-plicable when the· petitionet?· is. entitled: to relief.on the ~ground that 'the court was.withoutjurisdiction to· render ajudglilent-,or to impose sentence;. here,. !punishing Robey .twice for. the .same offense-first-degree. :assault-'· violated his· double -jeo.pa:fdy rights); Whitehead v. -State, 955 So .. 2d ·448 (Ala .. Crim. App.-'.2006) (death sentence case; in· order to, obtain a· reversal .of a :death sentence on the ·ground of ineffeetiv-e· assistance of counsel, ·an ap-p'ellant must show ·both '(1)- that the"identified aets· or' omissions of. colln.sel were deficient,- dr otitSid~ the: Wide raiig~ of professionally competent ~ssistance; and (2)' that the deficient performance prejudiced the.'defense such' that,

    1 without· the e'.rrors, tpere" l:s a

    reasonable probability that the· balance of aggravating arid , mitiga,ting cfrc~~t~¢~s' woilld hav~ been -difr~reµt):. . ' •.

    . ' . '.•. . . . l - • ·-

    §'3:17 Alabania,Rule of Crimfuaf Proced~e 32~Text of · . RUi.e 32.3 . . · , : . · .. · : . . ' ' . . . ··:

    • I , : j • , , • , • ~ • l • . ,

    RULE~ 82.3 BURDEN ·oF PROOF · ; · · ' .' · . • • . : .• · •• I l ' · 4 r , • , , • J

    The· petitioner shall have· the. burden. of pleading and proving by a preponderance of the· evidence the. facts necessary .to entitle the petitioner' to relief. The state shall have the burden of pleading. anY.~ ,.grQund of pre0lusi,on, :but once a, ground~ of preclusion has been pleaded, the petitioner ·sh~ll have the burden of disproving its existence by a preponderance of the evi~ence. ~ ~ , · ·· . .; I • •

    § s:1s . Aiabama::Rwe~of'CrhninalProc~dure·32-Text of · · · J Rule 32.3...;;.Case law · · · ·" · ·

    '. ~ ' '> j ~ • ~ I f l '; ' ,• - ,._ ' ' ' I ' • ' 1

    For case law. on Ala. R. ,criin .. P. Rule ·32.3, see,.e.g.,.-Ex patte Beckworth, 2013 WL 3336983 :(Afa. 2013) (in his petition for post-conviction relief from.· capital murder co·nviction and death sentence, ~efendant was not.r~quired to plea:d·.facts tending to negate the affirmative defenses of preclusion in order to ·survive



    Sl.lmmary disposition); Broadnax v .. State, 130 So. 3d 1232 (Ala. Crim. App. ~2013), cert. denied, (June 14, 2013)_ (in a Rule 32, Ala. RJCriin. P., proceeding, the burden of-proof is upon the petitioner seeking post-conviction relief to establish his grounds for relief ·by a·(preponderance of the evidence); Ex parte Hodges, 147 So. 3d 973 (Ala. 2011) (a Rule 32 petitioner does not have the·burden of proving ~his claims by a preponderance of the evidence at th~ pleading stage,. a petitioner·must only. provide a.clear and specific statement of the grounds upon.which relief is sought;·when ape-tition contains matters which, if wue, would entitle the petitioner to ·relief, an evidentiary hearing must be held); Ex parte Coleman, 71 So. 3d ·627 (Ala. 2010) (postconviction relief petition asserting ineffective assistance ·claim was meritorious on its face, thus requiring an evidentiary hear.ing, where. defendant alleged that bµt. for his attorney's -misrepresentations concerning defendant's eligibility for parole and work release,~ defendant would not have pleaded-guilty to rape; sodomy, and sexual abuse charges and WjOuld :in:stead have insisted on going to trial, and defendant's af-fitlavit alleged special circumstances._ relating to his age to sup-port conclusion!that he plElced particulSir emphasis on parole eµgibility when 4eciding wJiether qr not tp plead ~lty; meritori-()US .on its. (ace me~ns that peti:tion contai~ a clear and specific statement of the. grounds ·UPOD:

  • ALABAMA § 3:22

    § 3:20 Alabama Rule ·Of Criminal Procedure 3~Text of ·Rule.32.4-Case Law ·

    For case law. on Rule 32.4, 'the nature of postconViction proceed-ings, see e.g., .. Ex parte Chandler, 910 So. 2d 763 (Ala. 2005) (under Rule 32.4,· any other postconvictio:ri petition seeking relief· from. a conviction, or sen~ence shall be treated· ~as a proceeding under Rule·a2; here, .the··Circuit court correctly .concluded that Chandler's habeas corpus petition sh~uld be·tr.eated as a Rule 32 petition). . · · · · · ·

    § 3:21 · · Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedlire 32-Text ·of Rule 32.5 . .

    RliLE 82.5 VENUE Petitions .flied iinder. this rule shall be file.d in and decided by

    .the court in which the petitfoner was conyicted. If a .Pe.titjo:q.. is filed' in another court, it shall be transferred to. the court wllere :the corivictfon occurred. · · · · ·

    ) • f ~ r I. • •

    § 3:22 Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 3~Text of Rule 32.6. .

    ·RULE 32.6 COMMENCEMENT OF ·PROCEEDINGS · .. 1: · ,: . ' 1 • r , , • •

    ' (a). Forni, '})ling, and Service of Petitipri. A proceeding under this rule is commenced l by filing a peti-

    tion, verified by the petitioner or the petition~r:~ ~t.torney,. with the clerk of the court. A petition may be. fileµ at. any time after

    .·entry of judgnient,-and sentence (subjec~ to the provisions of Rule 32.2(c)). ·The petition shmµd be fi~ed by· using or fQJlowjng the form accompanying this rule. If th~t form is not used or fol-lowed, the court shall return the petition .to 'the petitioner to be amended to comply with the form. The petltion.~shall be ac-

    . companied by two . copie·s thereof. It shall also pe accompanied by the filing' fee. prescribed by law or rule 'in. civil cases in the circuit court unless the petitioner applies for and is given leave to prosecute the petition in forma pauperis. If the .petitioner desir~s t


    in acting-upon .the petitioner's -application for. leave to ·proceed in forma pauperis. If the application to ptoceed~in forma pau-

    .. P..eris i~._gran.~ed, the filing fee shall be .. waiv~d. If,. upon final ~ qispositi6n .. of the petition" the coUrt :finqs that all of the claims

    ·~ flrur reHef are precluded for any of the re~sons sta~~d .in ~~le .. , 2.2; W niay assess the filing fee, or any. portion t}iereof; and or7 '.I er ~~e· c;:orrecti~>nal institutiOn~havirig ¢usfody, df the 1 petitiqne.r .-~'Withhold' 50%' of.all moneys the institu#on then' )ias on .(;1.E:i~ . posit' fof' 'the petitioner~' or receives· in the. future'}o'r the petitioner, until the filing fee that has been assessed' 'by :the court has been collected. and paid in full. The order shall . also direct 'the~ institutitin 'to forward to the' clerk .. of the .court' in which. the petition was filed, at least once every three months until that portion of the filing fee assessed.by the couey.~ paid in full, any suc}l mop.eys collected from the petitioner.. . . . · . - ·

    '. Up01i'receipt of:t]ie petition and th~;1Uing fee,:·o~·a* ~rder , gra~ting.·Ieave· to the· pet.itioner to 1 proceed ill.' fotina_'iiauperis, . the clerk shall file the petition and promptlyjsend'a copy'to~the

    Oistrict attorney (or, in the case of a petition :810d in' the- muirlc-ipal court, to the municipal prosecutor).

    (b) .. Spec~~tcy.,, · _ .. · .. ;.i:.. ~ • . :tL . . . · : .. , . :· _J ·: The petition must contain a clear and spe~c. eta~~ment of

    the grounds· upon which relief is sought, including full discloslll7.e of ~e factual pasis of tho~e. ground$. A b~e ~U~gation that a ·constitutional right has beeri Violated ·and· mere conclusions of law shall not be: 'sufficient to warrant ~any fur-1ther proceedings. t'" ·· '· '· : •. ·, .. . : . . ·--. .)i ..... ,. ..

    . I· (c): Notification of Appellate· Court. ' . ;· >1 "' • ~. I -~f'an 1 ~pp·~~l oflthe petitioner's Convfotfon is pending; the


    ,·) clerk' ~li'~lt also i>~~¢p~ly. $0~.d . ~I COPY. of ~he· .Petitiop to. u~~ · .. ~p~ ~-proprtate appall.ate· ~ourt~ noting Jn the);ec'ord the ·date· ~µd '''.m~ner by whiqJ;tit is sent: '· ... · . :" ". '..' .. · ' " . · · . ·(d) ASsigruneht of Judge .. ' . · '. : . . · ·1 ;.. · .• .. ·' , :'" .-:"t .

    j • , . " , o. . .. , . :· I ' ' ... '"· ::;, . TJ:l:e .. PrQc~~dirig. shall be. as~ign,e

  • ALABAMA § 3:28

    petition is not properly dismissed by .the. trial ·collrt sua sponte on the .basis,that; it:is.inadequately.pleaded, and,. as a resµlt, failure to :verify .petition is a.' defe.ct. that c~n be. waived; state did not waive yerificat~on.r~quirem~nt;for motionto .. correct clerical error tha~ .shoajd, liav~, p_een fil~d a~ a; ;h~b.eaa · ~orpus P.~t~tiOn,. w~ere ~tate._cl~d.-npt .. h~ye, ,~;h~nce. to. r~sp.ond. ~P..th.e. v;~ri~G~tio.:Q. issµe 'Qefore ~ µial court .s~arily qeµi~9.·· ~otion, a~d .state r.ai~ed 'the issµe_ at its.µrst .. opp9rtu,nity,~ in-:}.)rief)to Court. of Ctjminal Ap-p,e~ls); Afelson v~. 4~l~n,_ 54~. F~Sd .993: qlt~:Cir. ~2008), cert. graµted, judgm~nt .vae.at~d 09 ~ther grou11:~s,:.5a1. VtS~ _1001, 130 ~. Ct,. ~491, 177 :L. E.d. 2d 1081:(2010) ((~ct that. RµJe ·?2.6(a) is supject to .. waj.yer ~dis .a nc;>;n-j.1,lrisdictipn.al def~c~ r~:11ders. it no less a 'filing' require~ent _th&µ: .EJ. JutjscU~~iQnal __ tiiµ~. b.~\wQµld be; it only makes it a less stringent one state defendant's postconvic-tion relief motion, -~l!j~h ~~~d .. to cqmply wi~h; _st.ate rul~~' verification requirement, was not properly filed wi~IU.11\ meaning of tolling provision of one-year limitations period for federal ha-be~_s cqrpus p~titions, ~egflt~es~ of f~ct. tP.~P yerj.fic.a~ipn,r~q}.lirement was non-jurisdictional, subjec~.'.:t.waiver,:· .. ~~- :Qur}lbl~~_by amendment); Ex parte Turner, 2 So. 3d 806. (Ala. ~008) (~ve~ed on other gro':lnqs by, State v. M~iD:, 6~fSo. 3d 94 (Ala. ~011)) (d·eath:· sente_nce case; ·pe~i~ibner ·"cannot show'· gdod caµse for discovery if thEfinformatiori sought js available .. through 'other less ·intrusive means, thi's is· consistent- with· ·and: furthers our ~blicy that discovery in th~ Rhle·S2 s.ettihg- is limited to discovery ·for· w1llch the petitiorier. ll~s. 'deiilori:str~fedr good c~use·; ·threshold issue'in.determiitjng wheth~r good ca.use' exists t9 support request for discovery in' postconviction proceedihgs is whethet:' petitioner has argued facts that, if proven, wotj1~. entitle .. ~Ae petitioner to relief; postconviction discovery·· Rule·· 32.'6 does not provide a petitioner with a right to fish through· official files ·and is not a device for investigating possible claims,· but ·a means o~ Vindicat-ing actual claims; defendant failed to:,show :good cause for discovery of records relating to.detectives,· where connection be-tween counsel'a·alleged failures and ·records ~ought was unclear); Ex parte Carson, 945 So. 2d 448 (Ala. 2006) (a single postconvic-tion petition may be filed against several convictions that arose O\lt of one trial; petitioner .was· entitled to :file single :petition for postconviction relief, with single filing fee, to challenge sentences for offenses that had different case. numbers but ·which. were resplyed.in single procee~g); Hyq,e v. State,, ~50 ~o. 2d 344 :(Ala. Criµi. ,App. 200~) (Rule 32 .Post9onvicti_n reljef pet~tioil;,was deemed filed for purp(?ses of Iµnitati_ons period: on qate petition, accompani~d by request to· proc.eed in. forma paup~ris, .. was submitted to circuit court, not date circ~t court granted. request to. ;proceed in. form.a pauperis;. a· claim. raised and addressed:. on



    direct appeal is barred for postconviction relief;· when the facts ate undisputed and an appellate cour.t is presented with pure qttestions of law' that 'court's review of rwing in a postcohviction proceeding is de novo; howeve~, where there are disputed facts· in a 1 postconviction proceeding and the circuit court resolves those disputed·· facts, the standard of review· on appeal: is whether the trial judge abused his dis~retion ·when he 'denied the petition); Tolbert· v. ·State, 953 So. 2f;i 1269 '(Ala. Crim~ App. 2005) (ineffec-tive counsel claim; Rule S2.6(b) requires· that the petition -for phstconvictlon' relief itself disclose the facts relied upon iil seek-ing relief; appeal to this coilrt has been ruled to be a· mtitt~r of right; failure to· file a titµely direct appeal to this·court is a 'Classic example of ineffective as·sistance ofcounsel). . .

    i '

    §:3:24 Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32-Text of;· . ,. Ru)e32.7 . " : .,


    (a) Prosecutor's :ft0spons~. 1 Within thirty. (30) days .after the servic~ of.. the petition, or . ~thin tlie. time 9therwi~e specified .by the. court,. t:P,e;district at~

    . , torney (or, iµ the:case of a.petition filed in the municipal co.urt, . , the D)unicipal pros~cutqr) .shall ~le with the c9urt and send to . the petitioner or counselfor, :th~ petitioner, if any, a response, which may be supported by affidaVits and a certified record ·or

    · such portions thereof a~ an(~pprQj>riate or material. to,the is-1 sues raised in the petitio:Q.. · · · · ·

    (b} Amendment of PleaCfuigs. , · ' : Amendments to pleadings may be permitted at any stage of

    the proceedings prior to the entry of judgment. 1

    (c) Appointment of Cotinsel. If the court does not swmilarily dismiss the petition, and if it

    : appears that the petitioner is indigent or otherwise unable to 1 obtain the assistance of counsel and desires the assistance of 1 counsel, and it further appears that counsel is necessary to as-. sert or protect the rights ·of the petitioner, the court shall- ap-

    1 point counsel. ·(d) Summary Disposition.

    ' . ' . If the court determines that the' petition is not sufficiently specific, or is precluded, or fails to state a· claim, or that no ma-terial issue of fact or law ·exists which would entitle the petitioner to relief under this rule and that no purpose would be served by any further proceedings, the court may either

    • dismiss the petition or grant leave to file an ·amended petition.


    . i

  • § 3:25

    Leave to amend rshall be freely granted. Otherwise, the court shall direct· that the proceedings continue and set a date for hearing .. · : ·

    (e) Assessment of Filing Fee. If, upon final disposition of the petition, the court finds that

    all the claims for relief are precluded for any of the reasons state4 in Rtile 32.2, are lacking ·in ·specificity as required by Rule 32.6(b), or fail to st'ate a claim of law or fact that is meritorious, it may assess the filing fee, or any portion thereof, and order the correctional institution having custoqy of the petitioner to withhold 50% of all moneys· the instituti~n th~n

    ·has on depos~t. for the petitioner, or_ receives in the fut.ure for .the petitfone:r, µntil the filing fee that has been assessed by the court has been' collected and paid in full. The order' shall also

    · ,direc-t. the institution to' for\vard to the clerk of the court· in which the petjtion .was fil.ed,' at .least. once every three. months iuitil that 'portion of. th~ filing fee assessed by .the court is paid

    · . ·. in full, any_ &µc\l µioneys ,c;ollecj;e~_ from the petitio]'.ler. !i

    .§ S:25 Alabama.Rule of c..hmnal.Procedure 32-Text ot'' -! ,·:, Rwe:s2.1~2.1(b)....:..~end.ment.ofpleading-.Case

    · law

    For case law· on -amend.nl.ent· _of pleadings, Rule 32:7(b), see e.g., SA.R. v. State, 99. So. ·ad12ao· (Ala. Crim. App. 2012) .(defenda:nt was entitle~ to arherid petition Sor postconviction relief alleging cl~s of failure tO' disclose, exculpa~ory ~vidence' a:q.d ineffective a~sistance. o,f counsel/ ~ince, defendant ~ad not be.en provided witli trial transcript,: .lti~ at~orney's ~riefs; court. orders, and .other court documents uritil 'after summary denial of petition);· Ex parte Martinez, 75 So. 3d 616 (Ala. 2009) (rule 32.7(d), allows the.trial court to summarily dismiss a Rule 32 petitfon · th~t, · on ·its face, is precluded or fails to state a claim, and we have held that when a Rule 32 petition is ·time-barred on its face, the petiti_on _must.13s-tablish ~ntitlement to the remedy afforded by the doctrine of eq-1,litable tolling; a petitio~ that does not assert 'equitable tolling, or that ;;tsserts it but· fails to state any prl,nciple pf law ~r any (~ct that would entitle the petitioner to the equitable tolling of the ap-plicable limitations pro:vision, may be summari,ly dismis~ed without a· hearing; the trial court may dismiss such a. petition · without waiting for . a response to the petition from: the State Car.r v. State, 950 So. 2d 1228 r(Ala. Crim. App. 2006) (summary dismissal: was warranted for untimely Rule 32 postconviction pe-tition. that did not .raise jurisdictional issue); Sullivan v. State, 944 So. 2d 164 (Ala.:. Crim~ App. 2006) (a trial court may summar-ily dismiss a Rule 32 ·.petition for postconviction relief when a



    simple. reading of the petition shows that, assuming every allega-tfon of the petition is correct, the. petition is obviously, without merit or is precluded; a postconviction petitioner is not automati-cally entitled to an evidentiary he~ng· on any._-and all ·claims r~ed in hie Rule 32 petition).. · . . . . .1.

    §'.s:2a.· Al•b&ma R~e Qf Cri~in&l P~o~edur~·32-~~ ~t Rule 32. 7-32. 7(d)~ummary, di.spositio~~Ca_s~ · law ... ·'' ~ :·

    .. :For case law on Rule 32.7(d),· see· e~g., Glass v. Thomas~ ·2013 W.L; 1180304 (N-.D~ Ala~ ·2013), .report' and reconim~ndat~on a~9pted,' 2.013 WL UB0303 (N.D~ Ala~ ·2018).'(no materlarissue of la)V or fac~ exists that would ·e#title· the Petitioner t~· reUef. wider Rile 32, and 'no· purpose would be served by'- any; further prpceedi~gs.);· Ex p·arte Crquch, 953· .S9~1'2d }~~~·~Al~'· 20:Q6fro(:ea~aj. rul~ ·g~verning)iin~nqm~~t of postconvict,ion .I>ieadmgs. permits Eµµemini~nt of RUle · 32 P,~tl:-tion without incorporating limitations of rdoc~e). ~ • ' ' ' 1 • • I

    j • .lt: '' ·' ,· '~ • -~ '.I}; ·, .,'. J.i ri ~ .

    §tS:27 'Alabama Rule bf Criminal. Proced1lre 3~TeXt of '.:i ·: ! -_~ule ~~.s , :'· .·.· , . : ;·RULE '32.8 'PREBEARING CONFERENCE . .

    • • ~ , ' • • + ' ' - ' ' • • _. I I ' , . . . . ~ ' t .- ; .. JIJ.: Arder. to·· expedite the proce~dil}g, the court m:ay hqld ~ '1

    • prehearirig conference;· at· which 'the petitioner need not be pte:. •::·sent· if lie or she is represented b:y_~unsel -who is p~esent. ~e : •'conference may be by· telephone.· Whether held by telephone or

    : ' in_,person}.-the·conference ·shall be stenographically tecorded or 1 • tape-recorded.· At the prehearing conference, the collrt may· or-1 · der a showing by:the ·petitioner .of ·the materiality of-the ' testimony ·expected to be presented by any Witness subpoenaed

    ·:·by the petitioner, supported.by affidavit where appropriate, and, upon petitioner's failure 0 to. show the requisite materiality, may order that the subpoena. for: such wi.tnea·s· not· be issued :Or be quashed. . ..

  • ·'

    ALABAMA. - l: .... _ § 3:29

    § 3:28 · Alabama· Rule .of Criminal Procedure 3~Text of Rule 32.9 : , ·. · ... , = ; • ; , . . • · . , .

    , r '

    RULE 32.9 EVIDENTIARY HEARING· : , . : (a) Hearing. · · ,_. ~: r •

    · : · · Unless· the court; dismlsse·s ·.the petition,·, the· petitioner shall · .be· entitled to an eVi.de.ntifµj.hearing to' determine· disputed is-... sue~· of material fac~, with the right to subpoena· material Wit-. ' ·nesses on ·his· behalf.·_ The court in its diseretion inay take evi-. den

    ·!! dence by.such means and other evidence in an evidentiary ;hearing. When facilities are available, the court may .in it~

    . ·discretion order .that: any evidentiary .hearing be held at the place of petitioner's:confinement, giving at least s~ven (7),days' notice-to the officer in, charge of th~. con~n~me:p.t facility .. -A,

    . verbatim.record pf.the:hearing sh~l pe ~a,c;le~ •' (b) .Testimony of P~titioner. ·. · · . ·- · .· . · . , ·;. ! · . • . , ·The petitioner may be ·called' to testify .at the ·hearing. by "the .

    court or by either party. , ... · . , ~ · , (c) Decision. · : . ' ·:; · · .. .ir.:

    - 1 , : If. the court finds ih favor of the petitioner/ :it shal~ ·enter an · · appropriate order with respect to the conviction, seritenc~~ o:r

    detention; to any further proceedings, including a new :'trial; and to any other matters that may be necessary and proper.

    (d) Findings of Fact. .r-. .. " · '· · · < 1 · _,:_·::. ;· The court shall make specific findings rif fabt refati~g to each

    material issue of·fact·presented. , . ;1 :·i· ,i r .. ·' ·.,

    . . . -, (. § 3:2P. . Alabama Rule ~f drhnin:aI ;Proced~e 3~Tuxt o(; -:

    ·Rule 32.9-Evidentiary hearing-Case law · 1:1·, : ·-{;

    For case law on eVidentfary ·hearings, see e~g.; Ex parte i-1Jalton, . 2015 WL. 5725133: (Ala. ·2015) (factual issueiregarding whe~her counsel erroneously adVised :defendant regarding parole eligibil-ity precluded summary denial of postc6nvictiort relief 'claim; circuit court to hold an evidentiary hearing on defendant's· Claim that his trial counsel misreP.resented pis eligiQility for parol1~); E;x parte Hinton, ·2012· WL: 545~542.!(Ala~ 2012) (death serit~.nce ease; circuit court based its detenhination that alleged expert was qualified to testify as an expert upon the cold ttjal record;. Els a result, it was in no better position than was an ·appellate'cblirt to make the determination it made; Court of Crimh;1al Appeals· erred . in applyi:ng the abus~".'of-di$cr~tion .stSindard .of ·re,view;·~ case



    remanded for application of de •novo standard' of review in review-ing the circuit court's judgment that witness was qualified to te~tify as a firearms-identification expert); Jarrett v. State, 89 So. 3d 733 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011) (case remanded for circuit co\lrl to conduct an evidentiary hearing on petitioner's allegation that his seritence was illegal; in lieu of. an evidentiary hearing, the. circuit cqprt may take. evi~ence by affid~vit~,,, ~tten interrogatories, or depositions, as provided in Rule .32.~);- Ex parte :(lodges,. ~4 7 So. 3d 973 ·(Ala. 2011) (petitioner seeking relief for the alleged failure of jurors to respon4 accurately Qr truthfully to .voi~ ,dire qu~stioning is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his, claim, unless it appears on the face of the record that he knew or reasonably should have known of the inaccuracy in time to raise it on ap-peal); Winbush v.· State, 18 So·. 3d 423 (Ala. Crini. App. 2009) (postconviction relief petitioner was entitled .to evidentiary hear-ing on· his claim that counsel rendered. ineffective assistance: in informing hiin that if he pleaded guilty to drug charge that he ~ould receive statutory good time credit, as petitioner presented allegations that, if true, could entitle· him to relief); Andrews v. State, 38 So. 3d 99 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009) (Court ofCriµrinal Ap-p~als was required to remand appeal from . denial of postconvic-tion relief to trial court for findings of fact after granting hearing -0n unt~ely. petition; even thoug};l. petition could have been· sum-~ariJy. dismissed, .findings were -required once a 4~ariµg, was held) .

    . , . ~. \

    §:3:30 Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32-Rule .. , . . 32.10: ~ppe~s ! The final decision of the convicting· court granting or denying

    Rule 32 relief is appealable to the Alabama Court of Criminal 4ppeals. Rule 32.lO(a), Ala. R. Crim. Proc. Under Rule 4, Ala. R. App~ Proc., the notice of appeal must be filed within 42 days of the entry of the judgment,or order· appealed from.· Under Rule 4(c), Ala. R. App. Proc., in the case of a prison inmate who is proceeding pro se in .a Rule 32 proceeding, the notice· of appeal Will be considered timely if it is deposited in the prison's internal _mail, system o~ ~r b,efore the· last day· fqr filing the notice Qf appeal. · ·

    § 3:31 .Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32-Rule . . " 32.10: AppeB:IS-Text of Rule 32.10

    RULE 3~.10 .APPEAL I 1

    ,· · (a) Who May Appeal; Court to Which Appeal· Is Taken .. Any party may appeal· the decision· of a circuit court accord-


  • ALABAMA . § 8:82

    ing to the procedures of the Alabama Rules of.Appellate Proce-dure to the Con.rt of C~nalApp~als upon taking a timely ap-peal as provided fo Rule 4, Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure. Any party may appeal a decision o~a district or Il}:ll-nicipal court according to existing procedure. · · · · r •

    (b) Release of Petitioner. . The. petitioner shall. not be .released on bond pending appeal

    by ·either party. Release of the petitioner on bond. pending a retrial after an. order ,requiring retrial has become final, or af~ ter the time for ~g an app~al from such an order has lapsed,

    . shall be .governed by the laws anQ rules governing release on · . bond pending fill initial trial. . . · · · . · ·

    * - • • ~ •

    § 3:32 . Alabama. Rule of Criminal Procedure 32~Rule 3~.10: A.P,pe~~Text of RµIe 32~10-Case la~.·

    For case law on appeal. of a postconviction relief proceeding, see e.g., Maples v. Thomas, 132 S. Ct. 912, 181 L .. Ed. 2d 807 (2012) (death sentence case; ,there ,was .. cause to excuse Maples' proce-dural default, where· through no fault of his. own, he lacked the assistance of any.authorized attorney during the 42 days Ala-bama allows. for noticing an appeal from a: trial court's. denial of postconviction relief; Maples was disarmed by extraordinary cir-cumstances .. quite. beyond~ his . control showing ample cause to excuse the procedural default into which he was trapped when counsel ~of record ab~nd~ned him without ~ word of warning); Ex parte Pate, 144 ~o. 3q 1254. (Ala., 2012) (Court of. Criminal Ap~ peals. incorrectly concluded that petitioner's motion.for seD:tence modificat1on was not pro.perly before. it for appellate review~ becauf?e. a. request for .se~tence modification is n~t a claim cogni-zable in a Rule 32' p~tition, .. where record supported petitioner's claim that hi~ request for sentence .modification was ~ade in a sep0xate motfon from his .. Rule 32 p·~tition); State v. Martin, '.69 So. 3d 94 (Ala. ·2011) (state .in postconviction relief pro~eeding was. not entitled.'tp review "of~the trial court's discovecy order by way of a petition for a writ pf. mandamus, ·whe.re State had the right to appeal trial' court's decision on the postconviction reljef petition to the Court of Criminal Appeals; although the State has only a limited right to. appe.al in a. crimi~al case, ~he State has the right ·to appe.al to the Court. of 'Criminal Appeals a circuit court's decision on a petition· for postconvictiori · relfef); Ex parte Booker, 992 So~ 2d -686 '(Ala. 2008):(pursuant to § 18A-5;.42 the State's failure to present sufficient evidence to prove a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is a nonjurisdictional 'defect that, when adequately preserved, may be raised-on appeal after aplea of guilty to a capital offense). : : · · · · ·



    § 8;88- rWrit1qf error.coram,nobis f_, :·· ·.·i~, ':•! ... I .' I

    l~~~~~:-~~bis 'Y~~ ab~¥she~ in.~all~~ iii1 :~~s7.-' ''. 1 . ('· ~·- · .. j. , : . :: "i.,. ''· . . . .• . t • . ,.:1 § ·s:84 Writ. of liabeas cq~~s, " . _. ._ r. : ~-' ;' 1 . . ~- ...

    Another postconviction remedy traditionally. ravailable in . Ala-bama is~:the writ of habeas corpus. Statutory habea.S:corpusHn Al-ab~a-.is·: authorized by Ala .. Code §§ 15-21-l et seq~ Altho-µgh it i~ clear· that coram nobis ·as·a postconviction:~emedy for·attacking co:B.victions has been abolished, it is nQt ~entirely clear whether. Rule 32 . also totally eliminates· the use of habeas· corpus· as a postconviction remedy for attacking convictforis: cir s~rltences~ '.at least in cases where the conviction or sentence is alleged to be void for lack of jurisdictio~. Cla.m.s that the co~victio~ _p, seq~µ.ce

    :::~~ ~i~ ~tj::~~tlhe0~~~=~;i~~t~0i~~!~:!~ such·jurisdictional claims. are also stiU'.cognizablre in ;habeas corpus. On the 'whole, Alabama courts seem to be of the dpinion that·,Rule. 32, not ·the writ· of habeas· corj>Us~;should be used··to raise a 'postconviction· claim that .a conviction· or :sentence1 is :void for lack of jtirisdiction. On the.·other· hand,. where::postconviction relief-is sought on. grounds ·unrelated to the validitY of the convici tion or sentence,· the writ of habeas corpus (0-r,;-in certain cases; the writ ·of 'certiorari), not Rule ·32,:is· the 1 appropiiate .. postconvic-tion remedy. · .·: .. · i ~ .· · ..:· .... ·

    :The grounds for habeas corpus. relief ate set: forth in Al~;. Code § ·15-21-24 .. ',The grounds 'for· postconvictiOn habeas relief fyoni cdilvictions . and: senten~es . are: very narrowly defineQ :anq are llinited; more··br :less, to jurisdictional claims. ·Genarall:Yi :a- denial of a constitll;tional right is- not regarded as a:· jtirisdictionar error w~anting postcol).victi~n habeas corpus relief 1n MaJ:>1Utta. · ·: ·:

    ·; Furtheqnore, 'if ·a' petitio'n for a' writ' of habe-as _corpus is ·fi1e·d and ·ra~ses claims co'gnfaa'bl~ under· RU!e ·s-2/Rule '32 r.eq~ires tJ?..at the .habe~s P.etition be 'treated ·as· a ·.R~le-' 32· petition. ·~tlle 32.4,·Aia.-~R.,.Crim. Proc. See~ e.g~~.Exparte 'Ch/.inq.ler, ·910 So~ 2d .763 (Ala. 2005){ ffanna _v. State~· 841 So.· 2d SlO' (Ala~·-c~~ App. 2pp2). 1;• I, . ,._. •· ,· .... :·- . .' . ' .,. ' -'..__. • ,·,!.,.; .· ' • ,··:·~-,·, •!8:~_5 · W~it_'!>f!1abeas co~iu~-~a~~law r~~ardingf,; ·. · ·:,·

    poiivict1ons and sentences · -· · · · · .· · · · · . ' ·~ • f".: .• \ , , • \ .•' I ~ ,~ ', , I ; ,· I ( 0 • ~ < , ' , j

    . For; case law on habeas .corpus attacks on· convictions and sen~ tences: in Alabama, see, e.g:,, Lee.· v. ·Commissioner,· Alabama Dept. of Corrections,. 726 F.3d 1172: (1.lth. Cir. 2013),(in a _prosecution for. capital.- murder, trial court's death sentenc~,. which ONerrode jury's recommendation of life without parole, .did: not. violate



    ate remedy in Alabama· for attacking convictions or sentences on jurisdictional, but not on constitutiop.al, grounds.

    It is unclear whether the writ of habeas corpus. may still be . used' to raise jurisdictional postconviction claims, or whether· such claims now may be raised only via Rule 32. On the whole, a survey of reported Rule ·32 case law reveals that Alabama courts generally take the ·view. that Rule 32, 'nqt: the writ. of habeas corpus; should be used to raise a postconviction claim that a conviction or sentence is ·void, for lack of jurisdiction. .

    •': ., . . .

    § ~:37 Writ of, habeas .,orpu~blims unrelated to the .. validity of the co.nviction or sentence .. · ,

    In Alabama. the writ of habeas corpus has also traditionally been the appropriate remedy for .raising certain postconviction claims that do not go to the validity of the conviction or sentence.

    § 3:38 Writ of habeas corpuS-Claims ·unrelated to the validity of the conviction or sentence-Case law · ·

    · ·for cas~ law. on the use of habeas' corj:>us in Alabama ~ rajse c~aim.s unrelated to the validity of .the conviction or sentence,. see, e~g., Felder ,v. ·state, 943 ·So. 2d 802. (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) (ha-beas . claim that Ala~ama prison officials .are detaining inmate under convictions and sentences r previously vacated PY the courts).

    § 3:39 Writ of habeas corpus-Difference between Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 and ', habeas corpus relief

    . Rule ·32 focuses on. attacks on convictions and sentences, and generally does not deal '~ith .. postconvicti~n attacks raising grounds unrelated : to tl;le conyiction or s~nwnce. unlike coram nobis, therefore, habe.as.corp~s l}as not been c,learly repJaced as a postconviction. remedy by Rule 32, but c;:ontinues to be a. viable remedy for collaterally attacking. custody on:. grounds unrelated. to the validity of the underlying conviction and sentence.

    § 3:40 Writ.of.habeas .corp~Postconviction habeas . corpus relief which does not affect. the conviction ·

    , 1 or sentence-Unconstitutional· revocation of a . suspended sentence

    Among the recogniz~d grounds for Alabama postcqnyiction ha-beas corpus relief which do not affect'the conViction or·;seritence are the following:

    (1) Unconstitutional . revocation of a suspended sentence.


  • I §8:88

    defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury determination of any fact on which a: legislature conditioned· an increase in maximum punishment;. r.elevant·. statn.toryJ aggravating circwn-stance· was that' capital offense. :Was: committeA while defendant was engaged. in ~ a~tempted robbery,, ~nd defendant'~ Al~~~a conviction .for murder. 4uring a~ attempted. robbecy qecess~rily inclu~ed·. ~ .fiµ.ding. by .jury that .ag~~vati~g .circ~µtstaµ.ce. w~~ present>;.H(lnn~ v .. St,ate,.84-1. So .. 2d 310 (Ala. 0$1. App. 2002) (habeas corpll:s·i petitfo11 whi~h cliEillen~e.d, 'yali4ity of sente~~e should have been treated as Rule 32 petition); Langford v. State, 823 So. 2d, 1282 (Al.a. Orim.. Ap~. 2001) n; a' ha-beas corpus petitfon raising issues· cognizable under'Rwe 32 shall be treated ·as a:Rule 32.petition; 'a'habeas petition raising.-issues cognizable in:Rule 32 may,:be·addressed· by;the circuit coli.rt if it is the convicting court); Washington v. State, ·822.iSo. ·2d 465 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000) (habeas corpus petition was in substance a peti-tion for postconviction,·relief and! shpl,lld have. been .filed in the· convi~ting .cpurt); Dal)j,s v. State; .7&4 So. 2d .1082 (Ala, .Crim. App. 2000) (a petition labeled as petition for habe~s corp:us, raising .is-sues cogriizable in ·a Rule· 32: petition, may be addressed 'by the trial court if it is the court df original jtirisdiction); ''Cayson '.v. State,t·778 So.· 2d ·261 (Ala .. Crint.· App. :·2000) (habeas·· corpus is not' the correct ·remedy to correct· errors and' frregularities in ·a trial ·m. a- court of competentjuriscliction; a petitjon: labeled as one for a writ of habeas corpus but raising issues cognizable under Rule 32 may be addressed as a Rule 32 petition by convicting court; a petition for a· writ of habeas· corpus eontestirig the -valid~ ity of a '.Conviction should be: treated·· as: a Rl.ile182·~petition; only circuit court of county of conviction may enter.tam a: Rule 32 peti-.tion); JoTJ,es u. State, 773 S. 2d 5p7 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000) (ha-beas c~rpus .· is 'not the corre'ct rei;nedy: to co~ect errors arid i~:regulariti~s~ in. a· trial in' a' cou,rt 'of compet~nt jurisdiction; . a petition for a writ .of hab~as ··cGtpUS contestip.g, the·:~alidity of a cc;mvictioii··should be treated as· if Rhle \3'2 petition fo~ postconV:ic-tion· -relief; 'Ru.le 32' did• not abolish· the substantive' ·right to post .. conviction review under the statutocy:remedy-of'habeas corpus; it merely changed i the procedure for.~seekihg: habea'.s corpus. relief); Miller u. State, 766 So. 2d 990 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000) (habeas corpus is ·~not the: correct ~emedy to cotrect··errors ·and irregulari~ ties· in a trial in a court of competent jurisdiction; a petition for habeas ·~orpus• contestihg the:validity,of' a conviction should be treated as a Rule 32 petition). ~ ;:~·· · · · · ,. · ; ·. : , ; ;·. · ·

    •· . , , , , I • . •, . , .'L '1" 1, • ;

    §. 3:3~ .. ;~rit of habeas corpµ.~-JUf~sdic~i_onal . . ·postconviction claims - · · . . · , .

    Traditionally, the· writ of habeas. corpus has ·been an appr.opri-


  • ALABAMA § 3:44

    Crutcher V.' State, 439 so~ 2d,725 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983) (habeas corpus is, proper remedy, for claim that suspended sentence. was unconstitutionally revoked).

    § 3:41 Writ. of habel,ls corpus-Postconviction h~beas cc;>rpus. i-elief whic~ does not affec~ the convic~io1;1 ~ i or sentence-Denial of proper credit for time

    . spent in jail (2) Denial of. proper credit for time spent -in .jail prior· to

    sentencing. Perkins v. State, 10 So. 3d 617 (Al~. Crim. App.1200,7) (allegation inmate was not granted credit for time served before his probation was revoked stated claim for habeas relief).

    - . .. . \ § 3:42. Writ of habeas.corpu~Postconviction habeas

    corpus relief which does not aff~ct "the conviction or sentence-Due process violations committed in

    ·prison dis"~plinary"pl,"oceedings · · · . : (3). Du~, proce~s· vi.olations committ~d in prison· dis~1pli~ary proceedings. Byers v. State, 856 So. 2d 954 .(Ala. Crim. App. 2003) (hearing officer's findl:~1g of guilt 'was' not s~pported by some .evi-dence; relief granted); Strong v. Ala'bama. Bd .. of Pardons,· and Paroles, 859 So. 2d 1201 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001) (petition for a writ of habeas corpus w.-as appropriate avenue f~r relief for prisoner to challenge a finding of guilt on, a prison disciplinary infraction, rather than a petition ·for a writ of certiorari challeng-ing· Board· of Pardons and. Paroles' denial of parole); Pruitt ·v. State, 835 So. 2d 238 (Ala. Crim., App. 2001) (claim of denial of procedural due process in prison disciplinary hearing); Parker v. Alabama Dept. of Corrections, 794 .so~ 2d 452 (Ala.·Crim. App. 2001) (proper vehicle in whi~h to test a prison disciplinary proceeding is a petition for a. writ of habeas corpus; ·when a ha-beas petitioner is confined in the. penitentiary,· the hal;>eas pe~ition must be addressed to t~e nearest circuit court).

    § 3:43 Writ of habeas coi-Pus-Postconyietion habeas col-pus relief which does not affect the conviction or sentence-Denial of proper good time' credit

    (4) Denial of proper good-time credit. Boone -v: State,·918 So. 2d 941 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005). · ·

    § 3:44 , Writ. of habeas C?Orpus-Postc~nviction :tiabeas 1 corpus relief which does not affect the. convicti(>n or sentence-State has incorrectly calcu,lated .the · · amount.of time.~~e inma~e must serve in prison. .

    (5) The state has incorrectly calculated the amount of time the



    inmate· must· serve in prison. lJay·v .. State, 879 So~· 2d·1206.(Ala. C1'm., App; 2003) (petition· for a· writ of habeas. corp~s is. the prpper method by which to test whether.the state has '.correctly calculated the time an inmate must serve in prison); State v. Corley, 831 So. 2d: 59 "(Ala. Cnm. App. 2001) (petitiori .for a Writ of habeas ·corpus is 'the proper' method by which to' test

  • § '8:50

    § 3:49 · . Writ ·of certiorari· Generally," tiie writ of certiorari, ·~ot the. Wrlt of'habea8, ~6tjjiis,

    is the appropriate 'remedy to obtairi.judicial'reView· 41. the" circmt court of· actions of the ·Alabama Board ·of Pardons a.rid· Paroles. ·The writ of certiorari may· also' be:. used tb revie:w ·certain· actions of pris01~. officials. : Generally, the petition 'for. a writ of certiotfQi must be' filed in 'the1 circtiit court of Montgomery county. For ;case law involving the Writ of certiorari~ see~e·~:g.', Ex•parte-C5ollins, ·84 So. 3d 48 (Ala. 2010)(statutory verification(requiremeht.for peti .. tions for writs of mandamus,, prohiBition, certiorari, lor ·other ire .. medial writs is purely :a.procedural·r~quirement,.notia jurisdic-tional requirement, because· the :verification of .the petition. does not limit the power of the circuit court to adjudicate ~the ~petition; if the respondent to a petition for a writ of mandamus, prohibi .. tion., certiorari, or other remec;lial writ. properly. raise& ,the statu .. tory verification requirement.in the icir~ui~ ·c9urtj; th.e.. petition may be amended as often as occasion may require to attain the ends of justice, but if the respondent·-does not properly raise "the verification requirement in the·circtiit co~, that issue i~·waived); Exparte Carruth, 21So;·3d 770 (Ala.· 2009) (death:.


    termination of indigency); Bostwick v. Alabama Bd. of Pardons and .Paroles, 865 So. 2d 1245 (Ala. Cri~. App. 2ooa) (although tJ;ie Board };ias nearly unf~ttere~ ~scretion. in granting or denying p~ole, sufficiently pleaded claim~ that the· Board has relied upon fals~. informatioq in its decision-making prQcess are .proper ~ubJ~ct matter .for petitions for a writ of certiorari filed in the Mo;ntgomery Circuit Court and appealed. to this Court; the parol-ii;ig authority must comply with constitutional reqttjrements and n;iay -no.t ·determine parole. eligibility on improper grounds; a pa-role .should .no.t ·be. denied .for,1faise, .insufficient, or capricious reasons; although no due process guarantees apply to the grant-ing· or denying·of parole, parole should not be denied.for capri-ci~us reasons) .

    . ,

    §. 3:51 Writ of certforari--Case law regarding review of · · actions· of prison ·officials · I . . I I . . . : · F~ case law, involving .the use of the writ Qf certior~ri to. review

    actions. of prison officials, se~, e.g.~ Robinson ·v. State, 12 So. 3d 58 (Ala.:2008) (Circuit Court correctly converted former inmate's action seeking declaratory judgment challenging correctional facility's disciplinary action against him, while he· wa·s incarcer-~ted, to a petitiOn for writ ·of certiorari, and· Court of Criminal Appeals thus had jurisdietion: to ·hear appeal· from denial ·of the . petition seeking- certiorari relief); Collins v. Alabama Dept. of Corrections, 982 So. 2d 1078 (Ala. 2007)' (Court of Criminal Ap~ peals, and not Court of Civil Appeals; had jurisdiction· over inmate's ·petition for writ· of certiorari challenging his classifica-tion· by Department of Corrections as heinous offender; Edwards ,~· State, 866 · So. 2d 609. (Al.a. Crim. App. 2003) (habeas corpus may not be used to raise claim that inmate had been erroneously classified as a sex off ender, since the sole function of habeas corpus is to provide relief from unlawful imprisonment or Cll;Stody; a petition for a writ of certiorari is the proper veWCie·for chal-lenging the administrative deeisfon of a: state agency; here, the claim of erroneous classification. as a· sex offender· should· have been raised· ill a certiorari petition filed agmnst · the corrections department, with venue in'. Montgomery county')°;

    I • • • ~ I .

    § 3:52 Motion to correct void sentence·

    : An Alabama court has power to correct, at any time, .a void sentence it imposed; it follows,. :therefor.e, ·that a defendant may file in the ·convicting court a motion to correct such a sentence. at anytime. I:

    '80 !

  • ALABAMA § 3:54

    § 3:53 Motion to correct clerical error under Alabama· Rule of Criminal·Procedure 29

    Under Rule. 29, Ala. R. Crim. Proc., which is modeled af~e:r Rule 36,·Fed. R. Crim: Proc., a court has powerto correct clerical errors in its orders, judgments, and reCO"rds' at any tim:e; it fol-lows, therefore;· that a defendant may file' a· motion· to correct clerical error in the convicting court at any'time. For case law on Rule 29, see, e.g., G. V.C. v~ State, 132 So. 3d 668 (Ala. Crim. App. 20~3) (for purposes of rule ·permitting corre·ction of clerical errors, the term "clerical error" is not' limited solely to errors by the clerk in transcription; 'it can also inc1ude errors by others, such as a jury foreman, counsel~ a party, or the judge.himself); Ex parte Collier, 64 So; 3d 1045 (Ala. 2010) (The function of Rule 29 is to allow· for the correction:. of strictly clerical errors or, put; another way' for the correction of the record to reflect, but not to' change, what was originally intended. Rule 29 did. not supersede the use of a petition for a wrlt of habeas corpus to challenge pretrial-incarceration credit. Because he is not seeking!the_correction of a true clerical error, Rule 29 does not apply, and the Court ·of Crim-inal Appeals properly· treated his motion as 'a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.); Ex parte Lamb, 113 So. 3d 686 (Ala. 2011) (undertaking to change a jury's verdict, whether in.written or oral form; is unavoidably a substantial. change,· not a mere- correc-tion of a clerical mistake pursuant to Rule 29); Johnson v. State, 18· So. 3d ·969 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009) (rule giving trial court authority to correct clerical mistakes .in judgments,· orders, or other parts of record at .any time did not ·allow trial judge,· after 60-day period for ruling on defendant's motion for new trial expired, to correct.the record to reflect that he~ngs on the new trial motion were continued by agreement of b,oth parties; the agreement to continue the motion for new. trial had to be on the record before the 60-day period expired); Clemons v. Stat~, 29 So. 3d. 1$1 (Ala. Civ.. App. 2009) (defendant~s failure tc;> file, wi~hin 42 days from denial, ~ notice of appeal from trial court's denial of motion to correct clerical mistake in which defendant requested that the court reissue a corrected ·certified copy of the writ of commitment in. that the Department of Corrections' ~~cords indicated defendant as having two convictions and not. one, precluded appellate review' even though defendant fil~d notice of appeal within 42 days. of the .trial court's purp


    18-200, .provides·for DNA testfog, only for persons; convicted of capital offenses if DNA:. testing was not done at the· time.•of trial.

    §. $:5~ . Posteonvfotioil DN.t\ t~stlng stat"~~e~'. of Ala. . . ; · Code §15-18-200 ·. · · · · · · · · · -· , . ,, · j

    • ~ . ' I ' I : • • , J

    115-18~200. · Motion by .persons convicted of. .eapitatof· . . . : · : · tense for forenslc DNA testing. amd ~alysi_s •. .,

    · ·(a) An indiVidual. convicted of a capital; offen~e ~ho is. serv-. ing a :term of.imprisonmen~ or awaiting_ execution of. a sentence . 10f death, through written niotion to th.e. circµit; coµ:rt that

    ent~r.e.d the..judgment of sentence, may apply.Jo~ .the p_e~or".' ·:mance of fo~en.sic ~deoxypbonµcle~c aci9. . C:QN A), ,testiµ,g p~ ,-specific eviden~, if that evidence was,sef?lµ"ed in, relatjo~.tq._t~e

    • 1inv~stigati9n Qr P.rosec~tjon that resulte_ci i;n .~e convi:c~9n:of 1the applic,iµit, is still available for ~.stjng._ as. Qf tAe-,~at~. of*~ ;motion,. fore_nsic DNA~eating was.not .. performed oµ,~l)~ Cfl:Se at .tP.e time of t}l.e i¢tial ~al, an4 the results of th~(qrE!psic.DNA ~estii;ig, on its~ (ace, would demonstrate tqe coi;ivic~eq; indivjdµ'1'

    • 1 al's fact11al inµ9cence of the offen:se conyicted. ,'f!ie filing 9f a . motion. ~s .. P.:r;"Qvided in this. e-q.bsecti9n. sh~ not au~~a~~c~ly

    .: stay ~ execµtfon. , · , ·. · .,, . " I . _ ; .. • , • : • · . (b) >Upon receipt.of a motionJor .D~A. testing,. ,the circliit

    . : court: .&hall notify the state and; shall aftQrd . the state an. op-i portunity,to resporitl to the.motion .. ,.. " . .. , :

    ·1 ! '(c) After notice to the: state and an opportUnity to respond, :the circuit court may order. forensic DNA testing and analysis

    · :.if the court finds that all of the following apply: .. · :. ; . : · ·. ·' (1) The s'pecific evidence . :which the . petitioner has -re;:

    ' ·quested be. subject to forensic DNA testing and analysis is still in'.existeii'ce and is in a condition that· allows· forensiC

    ' DNA testing and' ~nalysi~ to be conducted which would yield accurate and reliable results.

    · · · (2Y The 'evidence was not ·previOtlsly subjected to nucie~ ·• .. forensic D;NAtesting or was not subjected·to another forensic r ')?NA technology, and which may resolve:an issue not .. pi:evi".' 1 ously resolved ·by any prior forensic··ONA t~stiilg and

    : ·analysis. The .type of forensic DNA testing requested ·must be r ' generally accepted in the forensic community with the results

    ·( ·eligible .for inclusion hi the National DNA Index. System of 1

    • the Fed~ral Bureau of Investigation (FBI) .. : . · · · · · ·. , ·. · · · .I (dftJpori.receipt of a motion for' PNA,testing'or nc;>tice J>(a

    motion for DNA testing, the· state and the· circuit court shall take any steps reasonably necessary to ensure that. aµy reµiain:-


    : ing biological material in the possessiori ·of either' the state -Or - . the court ds -preserved pending the completion of proceedings


  • I ALABAMA.· .. §'3i55

    " . .under. this secti6:n~ Inthe event· biological material is not i;ivail-·, able· or that:.reliable testing is not possible ·due to the condition or~ absence of .the ·qiological material, the court shall dismiss the application without prejudice.. · u ~ · .. rese!\t. focatibP.; its 'otl~n and ;the ·date, time,

    . : . ~; . ! and means: of its. on~nal' collection~ . . . . . . . . . . . : '· : ·:a:. Th~ .·:r~~ult~ of' ~PY DNA o~ .other ~iqlogicaVeVj,dence

    . , , . . testing th~t ~as. ¢~·nducted in· r.ela~i9~' to .the .. iµ.vestigation · · · ... or· prosec:'utic>n ·that' resulted in· the 1c9n\7iction of the

    petitioner and entered a~ ev!dence at ~ijal ·by either the · :· , ',~prosecution :or 'thed~fense, if known. · · · ' ", f, .·, e. ;If 'ldi.owri·, th.~'. naiµes, .addtesses~ and' telephone

    !·.· nui;n.be~s;.: pf .alfpers~Iis. oi; .. ent#ies .who .ar~ .. kil'own or ·.believed to hlive'.i>o~ses~fon of.any ~Videnc;:e described by

    ! 1, , ... pa~agraph·a. ~Qr.b.,·.Jan.d 1 any,persons 'or. en.titres.who haye , ~·:: .. proVideq. ~y· o(tl?-(:) :infQrmation .~onu,rlned .in the petition-.· ~ ·~r~s. mqtioD:, i~4ica~g·.~~~4 person. Qr ~~.tity; ~as which

    ., •·items Qfevid~i;a.ce or ~nf9rmation.: · , , . · : ... : '. ,,_ .. f. The names, addresses, and telephone numbers .(:)f all

    persons· or.:ertt.ities· ·who. may ,potentially testify for the ; ) .. petitioner and a de$cription ·Of the sqbject ·.m~tt;er and sum-

    "··, r . mau· of the (a.~t$ to~~b.ich each .per.son. or: e:p.t.ity may .~estify .. '· · . ip; the . ~Ve.~t , t~~: c~c.uit: :Court


    the. conviction of the petitioner and that DNA testing of the ·specified evidence would, assuming exculpatory results, dem-onstrate the factual inn.ocence of the applicant of the offense for which the petitioner was convicted. (f) (1) Except as provided in sub'division (2), the circuit court shall order the testing requested in a motion for DNA test-ing, under reasonable conditions designed to protect the

    I interest of the state and the' integrity· of th_e evideIJ.q.e and ·· testing process, upon a determin.ation, after r~yiew of the

    record of the· trial of the applicant, of all of the foll9wing: a. That the requirements of subsecfiori (c) .have been

    met. · '.· , b. That the evidence' tO be. test_ed is in.~~,possession of

    the state or the court and has ·b~en subjec~·to a .chain of custody sufficient to establish that it has not beeri. altered in ·any material respect. , . · · . c. That the motion is ril:ade 'in a· timely' manner pursuant to the Alabama Rules of Criniinal Procedure Rule 32.2(c), or within 12 months of August 1, · 2009. · ·

    d. That. the motion is for the· purpose of demonstrating the actual. innocence 'of the applicant and not to delay the execution of sentence br administration of justice. . . . ~ . (2) . ':fhe court may not order the testing requested in a mo-

    . tion for DNA testing if, after review 0£ the petition, the state's response,' 1f required: and the re~ord' of the ttjal qf the ap-plicant, the court determine$ that there 'is no reasonable pos-sibility' that the testing will produce ~xculpatory evidence

    . i. that would. exonerate. the . applicanf of the offense for which the applicant was convicted. . ' ' . . .: . .


    , , , • , , • I I I • '..1 · '• J

    (g) (1) Any DNA te~ting ordered wide:r this ~~ction spall be conducted by the Department of F'orensic Sciences or a labo-·ratory mutually selected by the state and the petitioner, or if the state and the applicant·are unable ~o agree on a labora-'tory, a ·laborat'ofy 'selected by the court that . ordered the testing. Any laboratocy selected to conduct the testing shall

    . · ~e accrecµted by .a nationa~ f

  • § 3:58

    · · DNA testing . and analysis, then the costs of testing ordered under this .section shall be paid from the Alabama DNA Database ·Fund, as created- in Section 36-18-32.

    (3) The circui~ court· may appoint counsel for· an indigent petitioner solely for the purpose: of proceeding under this· pro:. vision providing for post-conviction DNA testing. This provi• siori is not· to be· .. construed as creating the right to the ap~ .pointment of counsel for an Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 32 post-conviction appeal and is to be limited to the sole issue of petitioning for possible post-conviction DNA testing. (h) (1) If the DNA testing conducted. under this section :pro-duces inconclusive eVidence or evidence that is unfavorable ttfthe petitioner, the cow-t shall dismiss the petition. . . . . "(2) If' ~he DNA testing conducted under this section .Pr.0-duces conclusive evidence of the ,petitioner's factual ·inrioceqce of the ·offense convicted, the petitioner, d,uring a 60-day pe;.-riod beginning on the date on which the petitioner is notified of the tes.t r~sults, may.file a petition to tl,le ~ircuit court that ordered the testing for post-conyiction relief p~~uant to Rule 32.1 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. Upon

    · receipt of a petition; the circuit court that ordered the testing shall consider the petition pursuant to Rul~ .32, .et seq. of the Alabama Rules of Crimi1:1al Procedure.

    § 3:56 PostconvictiOn DNA testing. under Alabama Code § 15-18-200-Case law,. ·

    For case law on § 15-18-200, see~ e.g., Lloyd v. State, 144 So. 3d 510· (Ala. Crim.-App. 2013) (§ 15~18-200 expressly limits. postc~nviction requests for DNA testing under that. statute to those individuals convicted of capital· offenses; �