Allen v. State
Decision Date | 25 May 2001 |
Citation | 825 So.2d 264 |
Parties | Bobby Joe ALLEN v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Bobby Joe Allen, appellant, pro se.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Stephen N. Dodd, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
Bobby Joe Allen appeals the circuit court's summary denial of his Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition for postconviction relief, in which he attacked his April 21, 1998, guilty-plea conviction for unlawful breaking and entering a vehicle and his resulting sentence, as a habitual offender, of 15 years' imprisonment.1 Allen did not appeal his conviction.
On October 20, 2000, Allen filed the present Rule 32 petition. In his petition, Allen alleged that his sentence of 15 years' imprisonment exceeded the maximum authorized by law because, he said, the trial court improperly sentenced him as a habitual felony offender. In this regard, Allen specifically claimed: (1) that the State failed to give him notice of its intent to invoke the Habitual Felony Offender Act; (2) that although the case action summary reflects that he stipulated at the sentencing hearing to having one prior felony conviction, he in fact did not stipulate to the prior conviction; and (3) that the State failed to prove his prior conviction for purposes of sentence enhancement. The State filed a motion to dismiss Allen's petition on October 31, 2000.
On November 13, 2000, at 1:24 p.m., the circuit court issued the following order summarily denying Allen's petition:
(C. 18.)
On the same day at 1:50 p.m., Allen's response to the State's motion to dismiss and a motion to amend his Rule 32 petition (presenting two additional claims) were stamped as filed by the circuit clerk. The certificate of service for these two documents was dated November 7, 2000, six days before the circuit court issued its order. The record reflects that the circuit court did not rule on Allen's motion to amend. On November 29, 2000, Allen filed a motion entitled "Motion to Amend Court's Finding and Judgment," in which Allen alleged that the circuit court had erred in not ruling on the motion to amend his petition. (C. 23.) The circuit court denied the motion.
On appeal, Allen does not pursue the three claims presented in his petition; therefore, those claims are deemed to be abandoned. See, e.g., Brownlee v. State, 666 So.2d 91, 93 (Ala.Crim.App.1995) ( ). Instead, Allen challenges the circuit court's failure to consider the amendment to his petition and to rule on a motion to obtain a transcript of his guilty-plea proceedings.
Allen contends that the circuit court erred in not ruling on his motion to amend his petition and in not considering in its ruling the two additional claims he presented in the amendment. Allen maintains that the circuit court should have considered his amendment as having been timely filed, even though it was not received by the court until after the court had issued its order summarily denying his petition because, he says, he gave the motion to amend to prison officials for mailing on the day he signed the certificate of service—November 7, 2000. Therefore, Allen argues, his amendment should be deemed to have been "filed" on November 7, six days before the circuit court denied his petition, and the circuit court should have ruled on his amended claims. We disagree.
We recognize that a Rule 32 petitioner is considered to have "filed" his petition when he gives the petition to prison officials for mailing, not when the circuit court receives the petition. See Ex parte Powell, 674 So.2d 1258, 1259 (Ala. 1995); Lucas v. State, 722 So.2d 822, 823 (Ala.Crim.App.1998); and Holland v. State, 621 So.2d 373, 375 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993). We likewise recognize that a Rule 32 petitioner's notice of appeal to this court and a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Alabama Supreme Court are also deemed to have been "filed" when the petitioner hands those documents over to prison officials for mailing and not when the appellate court receives them. See Rule 4(c), Ala.R.App.P.; Ex parte Jones, 773 So.2d 989, 990 (Ala.1998); and Ex parte Williams, 651 So.2d 569, 570-71 (Ala.1992). However, we do not believe that these rules are applicable to the present case.
The reason for considering pro se Rule 32 petitions, notices of appeal, and petitions for a writ of certiorari to be "filed" on the day those documents are given to prison officials for mailing and not when they are received by the appropriate court is because of the filing deadlines associated with those documents. See Rule 32.2(c), Ala.R.Crim.P.; Rule 4(a)(1), Ala.R.App.P.; and Rule 39(c)(2), Ala. R.App.P. In Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), the United States Supreme Court recognized the unique situation that pro se petitioners are placed in when facing the filing deadlines associated with notices of appeal:
487 U.S. at 270-72, 108 S.Ct. 2379.
This quotation appears in, and was the foundation for, the Alabama Supreme Court's holding in Ex parte Williams, supra, that a pro se petitioner's petition for a writ of certiorari, although received by the Supreme Court four days after the deadline for filing had lapsed, was nevertheless timely filed because, the Court said, the petitioner had delivered the petition to prison officials for mailing before the time deadline. The Court reasoned:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Giles v. State
...not consider the allegations contained in that petition because they were never properly before the circuit court. See Allen v. State, 825 So.2d 264 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), aff'd, 825 So.2d 271 I. Giles argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing his Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.......
-
White v. State, CR-16-0741
...of the proceedings prior to the entry of judgment." "[A]mendments are permitted only 'prior to the entry of judgment.'" Allen v. State, 825 So. 2d 264, 268 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001). 15. This Court has rarely stayed a direct appeal to allow a lower court to adjudicate a postconviction...
-
Boyd v. State
...petition was not preserved for review, because the appellant did not first present the claim to the circuit court); Allen v. State, 825 So.2d 264, 270-71 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), aff'd, 825 So.2d 271 (Ala.2002) (holding, in an appeal from the denial of a Rule 32 petition, that the appellant's c......
-
Giles v. Culliver
...not consider the allegations contained in that petition because they were never properly before the circuit court. See Allen v. State, 825 So. 2d 264 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001), aff'd, 825 So. 2d 271 (Ala. 2002). FN7FN7. We note that this third amended petition was filed well outside the filing......