Ex parte McGahee
| Decision Date | 30 January 2004 |
| Citation | 885 So.2d 230 |
| Parties | Ex parte Earl J. McGAHEE. (In re Earl Jerome McGahee v. State of Alabama). |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Angela Setzer, Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama, Montgomery, for petitioner. William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen., Nathan A. Forrester, deputy atty. gen., and Beth Jackson Hughes, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.
WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION.
I concur in denying the petition for a writ of certiorari. I write specially only to note a misconstruction of Ex parte Pierce, 851 So.2d 606 (Ala.2000), in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals in the case of the instant petitioner McGahee. That opinion cites Ex parte Pierce for the proposition that "[a] juror-misconduct claim is cognizable under Rule 32.1(a), Ala. R.Crim. P., as an alleged constitutional violation, and not as newly discovered evidence." McGahee v. State, 885 So.2d 191, 203 (Ala.Crim.App.2003).
The correct construction of Ex parte Pierce on this particular topic is that a juror-misconduct claim filed within the time allowed by Rule 32.2(c), Ala. R.Crim. P., need not meet the requirements of Rule 32.1(e), Ala. R.Crim. P., for newly-discovered-evidence claims, since a juror-misconduct claim is independently cognizable as a constitutional claim under Rule 32.1(a), Ala. R.Crim. P. Ex parte Pierce, 851 So.2d at 607, 612-14. Ex parte Pierce does not mean that Rule 32.1(e) (newly discovered evidence) would not save a Rule 32.1(a) constitutional claim for juror misconduct from the Rule 32.2(c) time-bar if the claim missed the Rule 32.2(c) deadline for Rule 32.1(a) claims but met all of the requirements of Rule 32.1(e) and Rule 32.2(c) for a newly-discovered-evidence claim. The claim in Ex parte Pierce was not subject to the Rule 32.2(c) time-bar for Rule 32.1(a) constitutional claims because the claim in Ex parte Pierce was filed within the two years next following the date of the certificate of judgment, Ex parte Pierce, 851 So.2d at 607, as then allowed by Rule 32.2(c).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Alabama
...Duncan v. State, 925 So. 2d 245 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005); McGahee v. State, 885 So. 2d 191, 203 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) cert. denied, 885 So. 2d 230 (Ala. 2004). Further, in each of these instances, unlike the present case, the petitioner was afforded the opportunity to try to prove by a prepo......
-
Brown v. State
...E.V.'s brother-in-law had any connection to Brown's case. In McGahee v. State, 885 So.2d 191, 213 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), cert. denied, 885 So.2d 230 (Ala.2004), we stated the following concerning a similar issue: "Veniremember H.O. stated that he was the father-in-law of a prosecutor in the d......
-
McGahee v. Alabama Dept. of Corrections
...The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. McGahee v. State, 885 So.2d 191 (Ala. Crim.App.2003), cert. denied, Ex parte McGahee, 885 So.2d 230 (Ala.2004). McGahee filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama in ......
-
Couch v. State
... ... because the record does not show that D.S.'s wife had any ... connection to Couch's case ... "In McGahee v. State, 885 So.2d 191, 213 ... (Ala.Crim.App.2003), cert. denied, 885 So.2d 230 (Ala ... 2004), we stated the following ... ...