Charest v. State
Decision Date | 26 April 2002 |
Citation | 854 So.2d 1102 |
Parties | Pat CHAREST v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Roger C. Appell, Birmingham, for appellant.
William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen., and Michael B. Billingsley, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
On Rehearing Ex Mero Motu
The opinion of December 21, 2001, is withdrawn, and the following is substituted therefor.
On March 14, 1995, Pat Charest was convicted of first-degree rape, first-degree sodomy, and causing the delinquency, or dependency of a child, or causing a child to be in need of supervision. On May 26, 1995, the trial court sentenced Charest to two consecutive life sentences on the rape and sodomy convictions and to one year in jail on the charge of causing the delinquency of a child. The trial court also fined Charest $10,000. Charest appealed, and this Court affirmed his convictions and sentences, in an unpublished memorandum. Charest v. State, (No. CR-94-1727) 682 So.2d 528 (Ala.Crim.App.1995) (table). This Court issued a certificate of judgment on February 6, 1996.
On February 6, 1998, Charest, through his attorney, filed a Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition. Four days later, Charest filed a pro se Rule 32 petition and exhibits in support of his petition. The State responded on June 25, 1998. On June 28, 1998, Charest's new counsel for the Rule 32 proceedings filed a notice of appearance. On July 20, 1998, the circuit court entered an order on the case action summary. That order stated, (C. 2.)
On March 11, 1999, counsel filed a motion to supplement the petition previously filed, although she did not specify which petition she was seeking to supplement. On March 19, 1999, the circuit court held a hearing, and, on April 2, 1999, it entered an order on the case action summary, ordering new counsel to file an amended petition within 30 days. The circuit court also ordered that (C. 4.) On April 19, 1999, counsel filed a "consolidated" Rule 32 petition. On April 29, 1999, the circuit court held a second hearing.1 The State responded to the "consolidated" petition on June 22, 1999. On July 8, 1999, the circuit court conducted a hearing on Charest's claims in the "consolidated" petition. On March 10, 2000, the circuit court issued a detailed order denying Charest's petition. On March 22, 2000, Charest filed a pro se "Motion for Re-consideration," which the circuit court apparently never ruled on. This appeal followed.
We note initially that the trial judge did not have the authority to strike the timely filed petition of February 6, 1998, and any legitimate amendments thereto; the trial judge did not have the authority to enlarge the two-year limitations period established by Rule 32.2(c); and the trial judge did not have the authority to accept the "consolidated" petition filed on April 19, 1999, as timely. See State v. Hutcherson, 847 So.2d 378, 385 (Ala.Crim.App.2001)
() .
Therefore, the circuit court should have addressed only those claims raised in the first petition, which was timely filed on February 6, 1998, and any subsequently filed legitimate amendments to that amendment that relate back to the original petition. See Rodopoulos v. Sam Piki Enters., Inc., 570 So.2d 661, 664 (Ala.1990)
() (quoting McCollough v. Warfield, 523 So.2d 374 (Ala. 1988), and quoted with approval in Garrett v. State, 644 So.2d 977, 980 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994)).
In his February 6, 1998, petition, Charest raised the following claims:
On appeal, Charest addresses some of the claims raised in his petition, and he asserts some new claims that were not raised in the circuit court. Those claims that were not timely raised in his petition to the circuit court cannot now be raised on appeal.2Arrington v. State, 716 So.2d 237, 239 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). Those claims that Charest raised in his petition, but did not assert on appeal, have been abandoned.3Brownlee v. State, 666 So.2d 91, 93 (Ala.Crim.App.1995) ( ). The only claims properly before us are those claims Charest raised in his petition and on appeal and those claims that, although not originally raised in the petition, have been asserted on appeal and appear to be jurisdictional.
On appeal, Charest argues the merits of his claims and asserts that his conviction should be reversed. However, we do not reach the merits of his claims because the circuit court has not yet ruled on the claims before us. We remand this cause in order for the circuit court to address the following claims argued by Charest in his brief:
We remand this cause for the circuit court to allow...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harris v. State
...claims raised in the second amended petition did not relate back to any claims raised in the original petition. See Charest v. State, 854 So.2d 1102 (Ala.Crim.App. 2002)"). Moreover, the record also supports the circuit court's findings that jurors E.T., J.C., B.E., S.M., A.T., and P.C., ar......
-
Giles v. State
...those petitions would be considered timely if they related back to a claim asserted in the original Rule 32 petition. Charest v. State, 854 So.2d 1102 (Ala.Crim.App.2002). The limitations period contained in Rule 32.2(c), Ala.R.Crim.P., is jurisdictional and deprives a court of considering ......
-
Jenkins v. State
...even remotely related to the veniremembers' failure to truthfully answer questions during voir dire examination. See Charest v. State, 854 So.2d 1102 (Ala.Crim.App.2002). The limitations period in Rule 32.2(c), Ala.R.Crim.P., is mandatory and jurisdictional, Williams v. State, 783 So.2d 135......
-
Burgess v. State
...finds that the allegations contained in part II.A.II(J), of Burgess's amended petition are procedurally barred. See Charest v. State, [854 So.2d 1102 (Ala.Crim.App. 2002)] (holding that novel claims presented in an amended petition filed outside the two-year limitations period that do not r......