Henderson v. State

• Decision Date: 21 September 1990
• Citation: 570 So.2d 879
• Parties: Jerome HENDERSON v. STATE. CR 89-626.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 879

570 So.2d 879

Jerome HENDERSON v. STATE.

CR 89-626.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Sept. 21, 1990.

Jerome Henderson, pro se.

Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Andrew J. Segal, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

BOWEN, Judge.

This is an appeal from the denial of a writ of post-conviction relief under Rule 20, A.R.Crim.P.Temp. The petitioner challenges his 1989 guilty plea convictions for first degree robbery and first degree theft.

The district attorney's "Response to Rule 20 Petition" requested that the petition be dismissed as a successive petition. In his petition, the petitioner stated that he had previously filed a Rule 20 petition that had been denied on September 5, 1989. However, in his "Traverse to State's Response," the petitioner denied filing any prior Rule 20 petition but claimed that he did file a "Petition for Reconsideration of Imposed Sentence."

The circuit court did not grant the district's attorney's motion to dismiss, but found the petition to be "without merit" and denied the petition. The record on appeal does contain a case action summary of the petitioner's guilty plea in the theft case but not in the robbery case. Other than mere speculation, there is nothing to indicate that this case action summary was the basis of the trial court's finding that the petition was "without merit."

In Ex parte Rice, 565 So.2d 606, 608 (Ala.1990), the Alabama Supreme Court held:

"Under that Rule [20.3] the State is required to plead the ground or grounds of preclusion that it believes apply to the petitioner's case, thereby giving the petitioner the notice he needs to attempt to formulate arguments and present evidence to 'disprove [the] existence [of those grounds] by a preponderance of the evidence.' Temp. Rule 20.3, Ala.R.Crim.P. A general allegation that merely refers the petitioner and the trial court to the Rule does not provide the type of notice necessary to satisfy the requirements of due process and does not meet the burden of pleading assigned to the State by Rule 20.3."

In Ex parte Williams, 571 So.2d 987, 988-89 (Ala.1990), that court noted that although "an appellate court can disagree with the reasoning that the trial court gave in entering a judgment but still affirm the judgment, as long as the judgment itself is proper," an appellate court may not "use a procedural basis that was not asserted until appeal to justify an alleged substantive error" by the trial court. (Emphasis in original.)

Here, the circuit court's denial of the petition as "without merit" does not appear responsive to the district attorney's motion to dismiss. Without directing any criticism toward the circuit court, this Court simply cannot determine the basis of that court's decision. The above decisions of our Supreme Court tend to indicate that that basis is essential to afford the petitioner due process on his appeal of the denial of his petition. See Sheats v. State, 556 So.2d 1094, 1095 (Ala.Cr.App.1989) ("If the circuit judge has...