Ex parte Boatwright

• Decision Date: 05 April 1985
• Citation: 471 So.2d 1257
• Parties: Ex parte Clifford Merrill BOATWRIGHT. (Re: Clifford Merrill Boatwright v. State). 84-210.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 1257

471 So.2d 1257

Ex parte Clifford Merrill BOATWRIGHT (Re: Clifford Merrill Boatwright v. State).

84-210.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 5, 1985.

Thomas M. Goggans of Goggans & McInnish, Montgomery, for petitioner.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Fred F. Bell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BEATTY, Justice.

This Court granted certiorari to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals, 471 So.2d 1255, was correct in affirming the trial court's denial of an evidentiary hearing to the petitioner on his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We reverse and remand.

Originally, petitioner was convicted in Etowah County for trafficking in marijuana, sentenced to nine years' penal servitude, and fined $25,000. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction without opinion, and this Court denied certiorari.

Boatwright later petitioned the trial court for a writ of error coram nobis, alleging three separate grounds for relief: (1) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in violation of Article I, § 6, of the Alabama Constitution of 1901, and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; (2) that his trial counsel had a conflict of interest in the case and did not fairly represent the petitioner, so that petitioner did not receive a fair trial as constitutionally guaranteed; and (3) that his waiver of a trial by jury was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made, because he lacked competent assistance of counsel and because he was unaware of the consequences of his stipulation to the admission of marijuana into evidence.

In support of the first ground, petitioner alleged that his trial counsel failed to appear at certain hearings, leaving petitioner "without counsel well versed in the case." He also averred that his trial counsel was representing another defendant on a drug charge at the same time, and that his trial counsel made statements to this other defendant indicating a prejudice toward petitioner's defense. Petitioner made other allegations of his trial counsel's improper conduct, namely, waiving a jury trial and stipulating to the admission of marijuana into evidence.

On the second ground, petitioner supported his allegations with the affidavit of one Glen Sexton, another defendant charged with a drug offense, who stated therein:

"My attorney [also petitioner's attorney] advised me during the time I was on trial and under charges of Possession of a Controlled Substance, that the district attorney of Marshall County had told him that he would trade me for that red-headed S.O.B. from Etowah County (Merrill Boatwright). I was led to believe by [my attorney, who was also petitioner's attorney] that if I testified that the drugs I had belonged to Mr. Boatwright, that the charges against me would be dropped. [My attorney] also represented Mr. Boatwright at the same time."

Petitioner further alleged that witnesses were available to support his allegations and to testify to facts which were inconsistent with the judgment. Petitioner requested an evidentiary hearing.

The district attorney moved to dismiss the petition, alleging nine separate grounds. The trial court dismissed the petition without a hearing. A motion to reconsider was also denied.

Petitioner appealed the dismissal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed with an opinion. That opinion reviewed the evidence of petitioner's trial on the drug charged and concluded:

"Boatwright cannot blame his conviction on the alleged incompetence of his attorneys. His own statements convicted him...."

The Court of Criminal Appeals also concluded that under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), counsel's conduct did not so affect the adversarial process as to produce an unjust result. "In this case," the court added, "we cannot imagine anything defense counsel could have done to change the result." The Court of Criminal Appeals also concluded that petitioner should have raised this petition's allegations on direct appeal.

Boatwright filed a lengthy Rule 39(k), A.R.A.P., statement of facts in his application to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a rehearing. That court denied rehearing without an opinion.

The basis of Boatwright's petition to this Court is that the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals conflicts with prior decisions of that court. Specifically, Boatwright argues that his petition is meritorious upon its face and that, therefore, under the authorities he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing in the trial court prior to a decision upon its merits.

It is clear from the decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeals that an evidentiary hearing must be held on a coram nobis petition which is meritorious on its face, i.e., one which contains matters and allegations (such as ineffective assistance of counsel) which, if true, entitle the petitioner to relief. See, for example, Populus v. State, 51 Ala.App. 166, 283 So.2d 617 (1973) (observing that since the State never joined issue on the petition and no hearing was held on the merits, the petition was meritorious on its face and required a hearing); Henry v. State, 387 So.2d 328 (Ala Crim.App.1980) (petition was meritorious on its face and thus a hearing was required); Ellison v. State, 406 So.2d 439 (Ala.Crim.App.1981) (allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, if true, entitled petitioner to relief; thus petition was meritorious on its face and a hearing thereon was required); Kennedy v. State, 409 So.2d 1010 (Ala.Crim.App.1982) (directing evidentiary hearing as to petition meritorious on its face); Chapman v. State, 416 So.2d 759 (Ala.Crim.App.1982) (allegations that counsel was denied, that State used perjured testimony, and that petitioner was not advised of right to appeal or right to transcript, required evidentiary hearing on coram nobis petition); David v. State, 416 So.2d 778 (Ala....