Beamon v. State

• Decision Date: 02 May 2014
• Docket Number: CR–11–1688.
• Citation: 204 So.3d 1
• Parties: James BEAMON v. STATE of Alabama.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

204 So.3d 1

James BEAMON

v.STATE of Alabama.

CR–11–1688.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 2, 2014.

James Beamon, pro se, for appellant.

Luther Strange, atty. gen., and Kristi O. Wilkerson, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.

WELCH, Judge.

James Beamon¹ appeals from the Montgomery Circuit Court's summary dismissal of his Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief. The petition challenged Beamon's January 27, 2010, convictions of first-degree kidnapping, a violation of § 13A–6–43, Ala.Code 1975, and first-degree robbery, a violation of § 13A–8–41, Ala.Code 1975, and his sentences of two concurrent terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

On July 16, 2010, in an unpublished memorandum, this Court affirmed Beamon's convictions and sentences on direct appeal. See Beamon v. State (No. CR–09–0599), 84 So.3d 1018 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (table). The certificate of judgment in Beamon was issued on October 8, 2010.

The record discloses that Beamon's Rule 32 petition and an in forma pauperis petition were filed in the circuit clerk's office on April 11, 2011.² Beamon presented the following claims in his petition:

1. Counsel failed to ask voir dire questions of the jurors so that counsel could utilize challenges for cause and/or peremptory challenges;

2. Counsel failed to object to the prosecution's eliciting testimony as to an essential element of the offense from the victim without any evidence of the charge having been admitted;

3. Counsel failed to make a fair-cross-section argument when the venire did not include men;

4. Counsel failed to object, under either Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), or J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994), to the prosecution's use of its peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors solely on the basis of race and gender;

5. Counsel failed to adequately inform Beamon of his right to testify in his own defense which deprived him of presenting the alibi that he was not at the scene of the crime, as testified to by one of the arresting officers;

6. Counsel failed to request lesser-included-offense instructions;

7. Counsel failed to move to dismiss the kidnapping charge on the ground that Beamon was never arrested and charged with kidnapping;

8. Counsel failed to object to Beamon's being sentenced under § 13A–5–9(c)(4), Ala.Code 1975, on the basis that the statute is unconstitutional because it discriminates based solely on the classification of the offense;

9. The trial court was without jurisdiction to render judgment because Beamon was denied counsel at his initial appearance; and

10. The trial court was without jurisdiction to render judgment or to impose sentences because Beamon was never arraigned on the charges against him.

The record does not contain a response from the State, nor does the case-action summary reflect that a response was filed. However, in its June 28, 2012, judgment denying the petition, the circuit court referenced its review of the State's "Answer and Motion for Summary Disposition." (C. 51.) Beamon asserted in his July 11, 2012, motion to alter, amend, or vacate the circuit court's June 28, 2012, judgment that he had not received the State's response to his Rule 32 petition, and, thus, he asserted that he was denied due process.

On August 26, 2011, before ruling on Beamon's request to proceed in forma pauperis, a hearing was conducted on Beamon's Rule 32 petition. At the end of the hearing, the circuit court stated that it would issue its judgment on a later date. The transcript from that hearing is included in the record on appeal, but there is no reference to that hearing on the case-action summary.

On September 20, 2011, after conducting the hearing on the Rule 32 petition, the judge presiding over the proceedings denied Beamon's request to proceed in forma pauperis.

On June 28, 2012, after denying Beamon's request to proceed in forma pauperis and after Beamon had paid the filing/docketing fee, the circuit court issued the following written order ruling that Beamon was not entitled to relief:

"This Court, having reviewed the Petitioner's ‘Petition for Relief from Conviction or Sentence’ filed pursuant to Rule 32 A.R.Crim.P . and the State's ‘Answer and Motion for Summary Disposition’ ^[3]hereby finds as follows:

"The Petitioner, having been convicted by a jury of Robbery in the First Degree and Kidnapping in the First Degree, claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel because he was advised by his attorney not to testify and put forth an alibi defense. Though the Petitioner asserts this as a jurisdictional claim, it is not. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is a non-jurisdictional claim and is subject to the procedural bars contained in Rule 32.2, [Ala.R.Crim.P.] Cogman v. State, 852 So.2d 191, 192 (Ala.Crim.App.2002). As the Petitioner's claim is not jurisdictional, it is barred by Rule 32.2 as it exceeds the allowed time period for filing a Rule 32 Petition.

"Further, the Petitioner has failed to plead with specificity, any facts which support his claim of an alibi. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof and he fails to meet that burden where he simply makes bare allegations and conclusions that constitutional rights have been violated without providing any factual basis for his claim. Davis v. State, 720 So.2d 1006, 1016 (Ala.Crim.App.1998).

"For the above stated reasons, this Petition is barred and the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested in accordance with Rules 32.2 and 32.3 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure and his petition is DENIED. All costs associated with these proceedings SHALL BE TAXED AGAINST PETITIONER."

(C. 51–52.)(Capitalization in original; emphasis added.)

On July 11, 2012, Beamon filed a motion asking the circuit court to alter, amend, or vacate, its June 28, 2012, judgment. Beamon asserted: 1) that the circuit court addressed only 2 of his 10 claims; 2) that the circuit court erred because, he says, it labeled his ineffective-assistance-of counsel claim as a jurisdictional claim; 3) that the circuit court erred in finding the claims time-barred under Rule 32.2(c), Ala.R.Crim.P.; and 4) that he was denied due process because he did not receive the State's response that was referenced in the circuit court's judgment. Beamon noted that the evidence adduced at the hearing that had been conducted before the filing fee had been paid had not been considered by the circuit court, and, thus, Beamon requested an evidentiary hearing on his claims. Specifically, Beamon stated the following regarding the circuit court's review of his petition:

"3. That this Honorable Court previously conducted an evidentiary hearing in this exact same proceeding, however due to an apparent mix-up regarding the filing fee, this court after receipt of the fee, apparently addressed the Petition anew, in any event, petitioner has never received a copy of the District Attorney Response to the petition referred to in this Court's Order, to refute the [sic] disprove the grounds of preclusion alleged by the District Attorney in its ‘Answer and Motion for Summary Disposition’ referred to in this Court's Order.

" Rule 32.7 A.R.Crim.P. allows the petitioner an opportunity to refute the State's response, here because Petitioner never received a[n] Answer from the District Attorney, he was deprived of Due process. Hug[h]ley v. State, 615 So.2d 1244 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) ; Ex Parte Rice, 565 So.2d [606] (Ala.199 [0]).

"4. That the petition on its face, pleads facts with documentary evidence, that entitle petitioner to relief, therefore, this Court should vacate its judgment, and set this cause for an Evidentiary hearing on the merits. See Rule 32.9, Ala. R.Crim. P."

(R. 54–55.) On August 7, 2012, the circuit court denied Beamon's postjudgment motion. Beamon appealed.

Analysis

" ‘When reviewing a circuit court's denial of a Rule 32 petition, this Court applies an abuse-of-discretion standard.’ " Shouldis v. State, 38 So.3d 753, 761 (Ala.Crim.App.2008) (quoting Whitman v. State, 903 So.2d 152, 154 (Ala.Crim.App.2004), citing in turn McGahee v. State, 885 So.2d 191 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) ). However, "when the facts are undisputed and an appellate court is presented with pure questions of law, that court's review in a Rule 32 proceeding is de novo." Ex parte White, 792 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Ala.2001) (citing State v. Hill, 690 So.2d 1201, 1203 (Ala.1996) ).

I.

Beamon asserts the following on appeal:

"Initially, Appellant James Beamon–Bey, asserts that this case presents a strange procedure posture, but to be sure that this Court is not confused, the Circuit Court initially conducted an evidentiary hearing and received evidence on Beamon's petition and prior to making a ruling the Court determined that it had not ruled on Beamon's In forma Pauperis declaration, and delayed a ruling until the filing fee was paid, once the filing fee was paid, it appears from the order of the circuit court that the court decided the case anew, disregarding the evidentiary hearing and the evidence that was presented in this case."

(Beamon's brief at p. 8.)

Beamon then contends that, in ruling on his petition, the circuit court abused its discretion because it "overlooked the record and misinterpreted appellant's claims." (Beamon's brief at p. 10.) Specifically, Beamon claims that the circuit court erred because 1) it incorrectly held that his claims were barred by the limitations period in Rule 32, 2) the circuit court addressed only 2 of Beamon's 10 claims, and 3) the circuit court, he says, incorrectly labeled his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims as jurisdictional claims.

A.

Our review of the record discloses that the circuit court applied the limitations period in Rule 32.2(c) to only one of Beamon's claims—that counsel was ineffective for telling him not to testify, which, according to Beamon, caused him to forgo an alleged, but unspecified, alibi defense.⁴

Beamon's petition was...