Ex parte Powell
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | HOUSTON; HORNSBY |
| Citation | 674 So.2d 1258 |
| Parties | Ex parte Michael Lamar POWELL. (In re Michael Lamar Powell v. State of Alabama). 1940666. |
| Decision Date | 28 July 1995 |
Page 1258
(In re Michael Lamar Powell
v.
State of Alabama).
Michael Lamar Powell, pro se.
Jeff Sessions, Atty. Gen., and Robin Blevins, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Respondent.
HOUSTON, Justice.
On May 5, 1992, the trial court revoked Michael Lamar Powell's probation. Thereafter, Powell, pro se, filed a Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition for relief from conviction or sentence, challenging the revocation of his probation; he also filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis, which the trial court denied. Powell appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeal with an unpublished memorandum, holding as follows:
"The record shows that the court considered the petition and found that it was barred by the limitations period set out in Rule 32.2(c), Ala.R.Crim.P. Thus, any appeal from the court's denial of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis was rendered moot by the court's actions. Furthermore, the record reflects that the petition was filed outside the limitations period set forth in Rule 32.2."
Powell v. State, 668 So.2d 934 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (table of decisions without opinion).
Powell's application for rehearing was overruled and his Rule 39(k), Ala.R.App.P., motion was denied, without opinion. Powell petitioned for a writ of certiorari, arguing, among other things, that the Court of Criminal Appeals had incorrectly held that his Rule 32 petition was untimely filed. We granted the writ to consider the timeliness of Powell's Rule 32 petition.
Pursuant to Rule 32.2(c), Powell had 2 years and 42 days from the date of the revocation of his probation (May 5, 1992) to file a Rule 32 petition. Although the clerk's office stamped the petition as having been filed on June 21, 1994, Powell maintains that he "actually placed [the petition] in the hands of prison officials for mailing on June 15, 1994, one day before the two (2) year limitations period expired on June 16, 1994." Therefore, he says, based on the holding in Holland v. State, 621 So.2d 373, 375 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), in which the Court of Criminal Appeals, following Houston v. Lack, 487
Page 1259
U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), held that "a pro se incarcerated petitioner 'files' a Rule 32 petition when he hands the petition over to prison authorities for mailing," his petition was timely filed.In its brief in opposition to Powell's petition, the state basically...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles, No. S143929.
...Spotville v. Cain (5th Cir.1998) 149 F.3d 374, 376; Peterson v. Demskie (2d Cir. 1997) 107 F.3d 92, 93; Ex parte Powell (Ala. 1995) 674 So.2d 1258, 1259; Haag v. State (Fla.1992) 591 So.2d 614, 616-617; Munson v. Idaho (1996) 128 Idaho 639, 917 P.2d 796, 799-800; Taylor v. McKune (1998) 25 ......
-
Setala v. JC Penney Co., No. 22943.
...the decision in Houston, state courts have also adopted the "mailbox rule" in both civil and criminal cases. See, e.g., Ex parte Powell, 674 So.2d 1258, 1259 (Ala.1995); In re Jordan, 4 Cal.4th 116, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 840 P.2d 983, 992 (1992); Haag, 591 So.2d at 615-18; Commw. v. Hartsgrov......
-
Allen v. State
...when he gives the petition to prison officials for mailing, not when the circuit court receives the petition. See Ex parte Powell, 674 So.2d 1258, 1259 (Ala. 1995); Lucas v. State, 722 So.2d 822, 823 (Ala.Crim.App.1998); and Holland v. State, 621 So.2d 373, 375 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993). We like......
-
Ex parte Jones
...[with an appellate court] shall be deemed filed upon the prisoner's tendering them to prison officials." Further, in Ex parte Powell, 674 So.2d 1258 (Ala.1995), this Court reasoned that a pro se incarcerated petitioner's filing of his Rule 32 petition was not barred by the limitations perio......
-
Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles, No. S143929.
...Spotville v. Cain (5th Cir.1998) 149 F.3d 374, 376; Peterson v. Demskie (2d Cir. 1997) 107 F.3d 92, 93; Ex parte Powell (Ala. 1995) 674 So.2d 1258, 1259; Haag v. State (Fla.1992) 591 So.2d 614, 616-617; Munson v. Idaho (1996) 128 Idaho 639, 917 P.2d 796, 799-800; Taylor v. McKune (1998) 25 ......
-
Setala v. JC Penney Co., No. 22943.
...the decision in Houston, state courts have also adopted the "mailbox rule" in both civil and criminal cases. See, e.g., Ex parte Powell, 674 So.2d 1258, 1259 (Ala.1995); In re Jordan, 4 Cal.4th 116, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 840 P.2d 983, 992 (1992); Haag, 591 So.2d at 615-18; Commw. v. Hartsgrov......
-
Allen v. State
...when he gives the petition to prison officials for mailing, not when the circuit court receives the petition. See Ex parte Powell, 674 So.2d 1258, 1259 (Ala. 1995); Lucas v. State, 722 So.2d 822, 823 (Ala.Crim.App.1998); and Holland v. State, 621 So.2d 373, 375 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993). We like......
-
Ex parte Jones
...[with an appellate court] shall be deemed filed upon the prisoner's tendering them to prison officials." Further, in Ex parte Powell, 674 So.2d 1258 (Ala.1995), this Court reasoned that a pro se incarcerated petitioner's filing of his Rule 32 petition was not barred by the limitations perio......