Culver v. State

• Decision Date: 25 August 2006
• Docket Number: CR-05-0512.
• Citation: 959 So.2d 1157
• Parties: Carrius Donte CULVER v. STATE of Alabama.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

959 So.2d 1157

Carrius Donte CULVER v. STATE of Alabama.

CR-05-0512.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 25, 2006.

Carrius Donte Culver, pro se.

Troy King, atty. gen., and Madeline Hinson Lewis, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.

WISE, Judge.

The appellant, Carrius Donte Culver, appeals from the trial court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., in which he challenged his March 2005 guilty-plea convictions for first-degree burglary, three counts of second-degree kidnapping, attempted murder, intimidating a witness, and the resulting sentences: for his burglary conviction, Culver was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment; for his attempted-murder conviction, Culver was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment; for his three kidnapping convictions, Culver was sentenced to three terms of 20 years' imprisonment; and for his conviction for intimidation of a witness, Culver was sentenced to a term of 10 years' imprisonment. All of his sentences were to run concurrently. No direct appeal was taken.

On August 3, 2005, Culver filed the instant Rule 32 petition, in which he argued, as best we can discern, (1) that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty pleas because, he said, he was not informed of nor did his indictments for burglary and attempted murder allege all of the essential elements of each offense; (2) that his convictions for burglary and attempted murder were a violation of his constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy; and (3) that he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel because, he said, counsel (a) failed to investigate the circumstances of the case, (b) advised him to plead guilty even though the indictments for burglary and attempted murder were defective, (c) failed to inform him of the nature and essential elements of the offenses, and (d) failed to communicate with him. After receiving a response and a motion to dismiss from the State, the circuit court appointed counsel for Culver and held a hearing on the State's motion to dismiss. In a detailed written order, the trial court denied Culver's petition.

On appeal, Culver appears to reargue the claims presented by his petition and further contends that the circuit court failed to enter specific findings as to each claim.¹

Culver first claims that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty pleas for burglary and attempted murder because, he says, he was not informed of, and the indictments failed to allege, all the essential elements of each offense. Specifically, Culver maintains that his indictment for burglary failed to allege that the victim was not a participant in the crime and that his indictment for attempted murder failed to allege that the stabbing of the victim caused "serious physical injury" or that the murder attempt actually failed.

The circuit court's order denying Culver's petition stated, in pertinent part:

"The Court is of the opinion that the lack of wording complained of in the Burglary 1st indictment would be surplusage. The indictment affirmatively charges defendant with unlawfully entering an occupied dwelling home with intent to commit an assault on Zerrick Johnson. It doesn't describe Johnson as a person `who was not a participant in the crime' but the recitations of facts during the pleas of guilt certainly reflected that he was an innocent victim and not a participant. Further the part that the assault with intent to murder doesn't aver that the attempt failed is a bit frivolous. The use of the word attempt infers that it was an incomplete act in itself. Further, had it not failed, the defendant would clearly have been charged with murder, not attempted murder."

(C.R. 6-7.) The record supports the circuit court's finding, and we adopt its finding as part of this opinion.² Moreover, in Ex parte Seymour, 946 So.2d 536 (Ala.2006), the Alabama Supreme Court held that the Alabama Constitution and the Code of Alabama 1975, not the indictment, are the source of a trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction. Therefore, because the validity of an indictment does not affect a circuit court's subject-matter jurisdiction, a challenge to an indictment is not a jurisdictional claim and is therefore subject to the procedural bars in Rule 32.2. Culver's challenge to his indictments are barred by Rule 32.2(a)(3) and (a)(5), because they could have been, but were not, raised at trial and on appeal.

Culver next contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Culver seems to couch his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim with his claim that his guilty plea was not made knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily. He claims that trial counsel did not investigate his case, did not communicate with him enough, and failed to make motions to dismiss his indictments, all resulting in prejudice to Culver. Culver's entire petition essentially contained only naked allegations that his constitutional rights had been violated. In particular, his claims with regard to the alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel were unsupported by specific facts and failed to satisfy either the burden of proof requirements of Rule 32.3 or the specificity requirements of Rule 32.6(b). Here, as was the case in Hope v. State, 521 So.2d 1383 (Ala.Crim.App.1988):

"This `grocery list' of counsel's alleged failures is totally useless because it represents only legal conclusions unsupported by specific facts. Moore v. State, 502 So.2d 819 (Ala.1986). `A petition is "meritorious on its face" only if it contains a clear and specific statement of the grounds upon which relief is sought, including full disclosure of the facts relied upon (as opposed to a general statement concerning the nature and effect of those facts) sufficient to show that the petitioner is entitled to relief if those facts are true.' Moore, 502 So.2d at 820."

Hope v. State, 521 So.2d at 1389.

The circuit court, in its written order denying Culver's Rule 32 petition, stated:

"The defendant contends that his counsel was ineffective and tries to support this complaint in generalized terms. His court-appointed attorney countered defendant's contentions with his own version of his efforts to represent defendant. Defendant admits that he told the court that he was satisfied with Mr. Lamere's representation of him when he...