Ex parte Ingram
| Citation | 675 So.2d 863 |
| Parties | Ex parte William Thomas INGRAM. (In re William Thomas Ingram v. State of Alabama). 1950060. |
| Decision Date | 23 February 1996 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Elna Reese, Montgomery, for Petitioner.
Jeff Sessions, Atty. Gen., and J. Thomas Leverette, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Respondent.
William Thomas Ingram was convicted of assault and manslaughter on May 19, 1993, in connection with an alcohol-related automobile accident. Following Ingram's conviction, the lawyer who represented him at trial recommended that he not appeal his conviction, because the lawyer thought that Ingram could possibly be convicted of a more serious offense upon retrial if his first conviction was reversed. On July 6, 1993, Ingram was sentenced to 20 years for his manslaughter conviction and an additional one year for his assault conviction.
After Ingram's time for appeal had expired, he learned that his attorney had incorrectly told him that he could be convicted of a more serious crime on retrial. Once Ingram learned that the fear that had deterred him from appealing his conviction was unfounded, Ingram, on January 21, 1994, filed with the trial judge a motion seeking permission to file an out-of-time appeal. The judge denied that motion. On March 8, 1994, Ingram filed a Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that ineffective assistance of counsel had denied him his right to appeal and again requesting permission to file an out-of-time appeal. The trial judge granted Ingram's request of an out-of-time appeal.
Ingram filed an appeal on June 2, 1994. On June 3, 1994, the trial court appointed new counsel to represent him in the appeal. On June 15, 1994, Ingram's new attorney filed a motion, pursuant to Ex parte Jackson, 598 So.2d 895 (Ala.1992), to toll the running of the time for filing a new trial motion; the trial court, on that same day, entered an order purporting to grant that motion. Ingram subsequently moved for a new trial, alleging, among other things, that he had been denied the right to effective assistance of counsel at trial. The trial court denied Ingram's motion for new trial.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Ingram's conviction, holding that his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim was procedurally barred. In an unpublished memorandum of August 18, 1995, that Court stated:
We granted Ingram's petition for certiorari review to consider the single issue whether the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly held that his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was procedurally barred.
In Jackson, supra, this Court held that a trial judge was required to extend a defendant's time for filing a new trial motion if the defendant's newly appointed appellate counsel timely moved for such an extension before the 30-day period allowed by Rule 24.1, Ala.R.Crim.P., had expired. The purpose of the Jackson holding was to facilitate the review of ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims on direct appeal and thereby cut down on the number of collateral appeals attacking convictions on that basis. The holding was also intended to better protect the rights of convicted persons who have legitimate claims that they have been deprived of the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel.
Jackson extended the Rule 24.1(b) time limit for making new trial motions in order to give new appellate counsel enough time to review the trial transcript and identify any deficient trial counsel performance and move the trial judge for a new trial before the defendant's case is heard upon appeal. In order to encourage the presentation of ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims in direct appeals rather than in collateral appeals, it was necessary to grant this additional time to present the issue to the trial judge on a new trial motion, because it has been universally held that "claims of ineffective assistance of counsel may not be considered for the first time on direct appeal." Jackson, 598 So.2d at 897 (quoting United States v. Stitzer, 785 F.2d 1506, 1520 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, Perna v. United States, 479 U.S. 823, 107 S.Ct. 93, 93 L.Ed.2d 44 (1986)).
The purposes of the Jackson holding were very noble, and when the Jackson procedure was adopted, it seemed to be very well reasoned and relatively simple to apply. Since that time though, the application of the Jackson procedure has caused innumerable problems 1 and has become a trap for the unwary, potentially frustrating the presentation of some defendants' ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, 2 rather than facilitating the presentation of those claims.
In Musgrove v. State, 659 So.2d 229, 230 (Ala.Cr.App.1995), Judge Taylor, writing for the majority, stated: "The application of Jackson has presented numerous situations that have spawned problems, not only for the trial courts and attorneys, but for this court as well." The confusion and intractable problems that have ensued following our holding in Jackson leave the members of this Court no alternative to overruling Jackson.
Both this Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals have made great efforts to clarify the Jackson holding and to solve the problems that seem to have followed it in a constant stream. In Ex parte Webb, 656 So.2d 351 (Ala.1995), this Court went so far as to extend the Rule 4(b)(1), Ala.R.App.P., 42-day limit for the filing of a notice of appeal in order to make the Jackson procedure more workable. But our experience has shown that the problems caused by our attempt in Jackson to cut down on the number of collateral appeals greatly outweigh the benefits obtained through the small reduction we have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lucas v. Estes
... ... Crim. App. 2017) (table). He then filed a petition for certiorari in the Alabama Supreme Court, which was denied on June 9, 2017. Ex parte Lucas , 251 So. 3d 23 (Ala. 2017) (table). A certificate of judgment issued the same day. (Doc. 8-20). E. Rule 32 Proceedings and State Collateral ... See Rule 24.1(b), Ala. R. Crim. P.; Ex parte Ingram , 675 So. 2d 863, 865 (Ala. 1996); see also V ... R ... v ... State , 852 So. 2d 194, 200-03 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002) (rejecting the State's argument that ... ...
-
Miller v. State, CR-08-1413
... ... See, e.g., Coral v. State , 900 So. 2d 1274, 1288 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte Jenkins , 972 So. 2d 159 (Ala. 2005), and the cases cited therein. "Alabama courts have consistently held that even when a trial court adopts ... and adopted by the trial court verbatim does not reflect the independent and impartial findings and conclusions of the trial court.' Ex parte Ingram , 51 So. 3d 1119, 1124 (Ala. 2010) ... "In Ingram , the Supreme Court held that the circuit court's adoption of the State's proposed order denying ... ...
-
Mason v. State
... ... See Ex parte Harrell, 470 So.2d 1309 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 935, 106 S.Ct. 269, 88 L.Ed.2d 276 (1985); Ex parte Womack, 435 So.2d 766 (Ala.), cert ... Chandler v. State, 615 So.2d 100, 110 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), cert. denied, 615 So.2d 111 (Ala.1993) (Ingram, J., dissenting) ... Although the specific number of times that fingerprints are successfully recovered was not in evidence, we do not find that the ... ...
-
Davis v. State
... ... if the error is so obvious that the failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings,' Ex parte Womack, 435 So.2d 766, 769 (Ala.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 986, 104 S.Ct. 436, 78 L.Ed.2d 367 (1983) (quoting United States v. Chaney, 662 F.2d ... Brown v. State, 701 So.2d 314 (Ala. Cr.App.1997) ; Ex parte Ingram, 675 So.2d 863 (Ala.1996) ... However, because the appellant was sentenced to death, we will review his claims under the plain error rule. Rule 45A, ... ...
-
Post-trial motions
...to follow the rule that new counsel must file ineffectiveness claim as soon as one assumes the representation. [ Ex parte Ingram , 675 So.2d 863 (Alabama 1996).] PRACTICE TIP: Do not rush into filing a post-trial ineffectiveness motion. Gathering the information you need (obtaining records,......
-
Preserving the Record for Appeal: Tips and Pitfalls
...(Ala. Crim. App. 1993) (also addressing other proper methods to preserve a sufficiency of the evidence claim).60. See Ex parte Ingram, 675 So. 2d 863, 866 (Ala. 1996) (doing away with extensions of time for newly appointed counsel to investigate IATC for the motion for new trial).61. Rule 2......