Ex parte Williams
Decision Date | 17 July 1992 |
Citation | 651 So.2d 569 |
Parties | Ex parte James Michael WILLIAMS. 1901143. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
James Michael Williams, pro se.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Cecil G. Brendle, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
The petitioner, James Michael Williams, seeks review of a judgment of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirming the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief.
Williams was convicted of first degree rape and second degree kidnapping. He was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment for the rape and 8 years' imprisonment for the kidnapping, those sentences to run concurrently.
Williams appealed his convictions to the Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed them. Williams v. State, 535 So.2d 225 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). Thereafter, Williams filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 20, Ala.R.Cr.P.Temp., which was applicable when he made his motion. The trial court dismissed the petition, and Williams appealed that dismissal to the Court of Criminal Appeals. That court affirmed, without opinion.
Williams applied for a rehearing, which was denied on April 11, 1991. Williams then prepared a petition for writ of certiorari, which was received by this Court on April 29, 1991, four days after the deadline for filing. This petition had been mailed with the United States Postal Service, but not by certified, express, or registered mail. Pursuant to Rule 25, A.R.App.P., "[p]apers required or permitted to be filed in an appellate court" must be received within the time period set by law even if mailed, except that where the papers are mailed by United States express, certified, or registered mail, they are deemed to have been filed on the day of mailing. Thus, papers so mailed are timely so long as they are mailed within the time prescribed for filing; papers not mailed by United States express, certified, or registered mail are deemed filed upon receipt. Ala.R.App.P. 25.
Williams states that he tendered his petition to prison officials to be mailed within the time prescribed by law for filing. Also, Williams has filed with this Court two statements from other persons to this effect.
Williams does not have access to a United States post office. Prison authorities will place items in the mail for him, but he has no guarantee as to when a paper will actually be mailed, and prison officials are not required to provide express, certified, or registered mail service for him. Finally, it is obvious that Williams could not hand deliver his petition.
Based on these considerations and the analysis to follow, we determined that Williams's petition for the writ of certiorari was timely filed and we granted the petition.
We are not persuaded that Rule 25 is to be rigidly interpreted in the situation of a pro se prisoner who, by the circumstances of his incarceration, has a particular lack of control over papers to be mailed to the clerk of this Court. The Committee Comments to Ala.R.App.P. 1, which defines the scope of our appellate rules, state that "it is the policy of these rules to disregard technicality and form in order that a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every appellate proceeding on its merits may be obtained." To rigidly interpret Rule 25 in this instance would be unjust and, therefore, would not foster this policy.
Confronted with a similar situation, the United States Supreme Court in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), determined that a notice of appeal from a pro se prisoner must be deemed "filed" under the federal appellate rules when the notice is properly placed in the hands of prison authorities. The Court reasoned:
487 U.S. at 270-72, 108 S.Ct. at 2382-83.
We agree with the reasoning in Houston v. Lack and hold that under Rule 25 a pro se prisoner's filings shall be deemed filed upon the prisoner's tendering them to prison officials. Rule 25, taken in context of the goals of the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure and given the compelling grounds discussed above, is flexible enough to allow a paper to be deemed filed upon its proper receipt by a prison official.
We now turn to Williams's substantive arguments.
Williams argues that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 20, Ala.R.Cr.P.Temp. Williams states that he was wrongfully denied an evidentiary hearing on his Rule 20 petition, and that, because he was entitled to a hearing, the trial court erred in dismissing the petition. See, Ex parte Boatwright, 471 So.2d 1257, 1258 (Ala.1985).
Rule 20 provides, in pertinent part, that one can obtain post-conviction relief where:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Saunders v. Stewart
...(Jordan, J., concurring)). 8. Under Alabama law, the facts alleged in the habeas petition are assumed to be true. See Ex Parte Williams, 651 So. 2d 569, 572 (Ala. 1992). 9. For simplicity's sake, each ground Saunders raised is addressed in the same order his petition addressed them. 10. The......
-
Wilson v. State
...is a post-conviction petition a substitute for an appeal, `nor does it afford one an additional, de facto, appeal.' Ex parte Williams, 651 So.2d 569, 572 (Ala.), on remand, 651 So.2d 573 (Ala.Cr.App.), after remand, 659 So.2d 972 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994)." Ex parte Land, 775 So.2d 840 (Ala.Crim.A......
-
Martin v. Dep't of Corr.
...of the judgment or order appealed from ....Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) (1992) (amended 1993).6 These states are Alabama, Ex parte Williams , 651 So.2d 569 (Ala. 1992) ; Arizona, Mayer v. State , 184 Ariz. 242, 908 P.2d 56 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995) ; California, In re Jordan , 4 Cal.4th 116, 13 Cal.......
-
Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles
...and Utah. (See, e.g., Ala. Rules. App.Proc., rule 4(c) ["notice of appeal in either a civil or a criminal case"] and Ex parte Williams (Ala.1992) 651 So.2d 569, 570-571 [all "papers required or permitted to be filed in an appellate court" including petition for writ of certiorari]; State v.......