Hiett v. State
Citation | 642 So.2d 492 |
Parties | Jerry Z. HIETT v. STATE. CR 91-1972. |
Decision Date | 07 May 1993 |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jerry Z. Hiett, pro se.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and James Prude, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from the dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The petitioner, Jerry Z. Hiett, filed a document entitled "Petition for the Application of the Writ of Habeas Corpus" in the Elmore Circuit Court on July 21, 1992. In this petition, he challenges his two 1988 Cleburne County convictions for perjury in the first degree based on the following allegations: that his trial counsel was ineffective; that the two convictions violate double jeopardy principles because both perjury convictions arose from the same testimony he gave at the sentencing hearing of Bill Hiett, see Hiett v. State, 548 So.2d 483 (Ala.Cr.App.1987); that his convictions were obtained by violating his right against self-incrimination; and that his two consecutive life sentences are excessive and the result of a vindictive application of the Habitual Felony Offender Act.
On August 24, 1992, an Elmore County Assistant District Attorney filed what appears to be an untimely motion 1 to dismiss the petition. This motion alleged that the issues raised in the habeas petition were issues "properly asserted in a [Rule 32 petition]"; that the petition should be treated as a Rule 32 petition; and that relief was precluded because the issues could have been raised on appeal, because the petition was a successive petition, and because the petition was filed beyond the two-year period of limitations provided in Rule 32.2(c). CR. 19. The trial court granted the State's motion, treating the petition as one for post-conviction relief and dismissing the petition without an evidentiary hearing.
Hiett's petition contains the following statement: CR. 10. In Brown, this Court held:
"Although we greatly admire the well intended effort of the learned trial judge to take time by the forelock and proceed, with justice to all concerned, to a final determination of a grievance by petitioner that is not redressable by petition for writ of habeas corpus, we seriously doubt his authority to convert a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the petition in the instant case is, into a petition for writ of error coram nobis, which the petition is not, either in form or in essence."
Brown, 429 So.2d at 676. On the authority of Rule 32, A.R.Crim.P., and the cases cited below, Brown is specifically overruled to the extent that it holds that a circuit court does not have the authority to treat a petition for a writ of habeas corpus as a petition for post-conviction relief.
Rule 32.4 specifically provides:
In Nickerson v. State, 597 So.2d 762 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), this Court specifically held that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus contesting the validity of a conviction should have been treated as a petition for post-conviction relief.
597 So.2d at 763. As we stated in Drayton v. State, 600 So.2d 1088, 1089 (Ala.Cr.App.1992):
The petitioner simply cannot avoid the procedural bars of Rule 32 by entitling his petition as one for writ of habeas corpus, 2 or by declaring that the petition "is not to be construed as a Rule 32 petition." The Elmore Circuit Court properly treated the habeas corpus petition as a petition for post-conviction relief. However, that court was not the court of conviction and, consequently, had no authority to dispose of the petition. Rule 32.5 clearly provides:
(Emphasis added.)
See also Rivera v. State, 615 So.2d 659 (Ala.Cr.App.1992) ().
Therefore, the judgment of the circuit court dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is reversed. This cause is remanded with directions that the Elmore Circuit Court transfer the matter to the Cleburne Circuit Court and that the Cleburne Circuit Court return the petition to the petitioner so that he may have the opportunity to file his petition in the proper form as required by Rule 32.6. 3 E.g., Brooks v. State, 612 So.2d 543 (Ala.Cr.App.1992); Graham v. State, 599 So.2d 82 (Ala.Cr.App.1992).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
All Judges concur.
1 Rule 32.7(a) provides in pertinent part that "[w]ithin thirty (30) days after the service of the petition, or within the time otherwise...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Locke v. State, CR-04-0420.
...seeking habeas corpus relief in most situations."'" Cayson v. State, 778 So.2d 261, 262 (Ala.Crim.App.2000)(quoting Hiett v. State, 642 So.2d 492, 493 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993), quoting in turn Drayton v. State, 600 So.2d 1088, 1089 (Ala.Crim.App.1992)). Rule 32 was enacted "`"to eliminate confu......
-
Ex parte McWilliams
...Circuit Court is not the court of McWilliams's conviction; thus, it had "no authority to dispose of the petition." Hiett v. State, 642 So.2d 492, 493 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). On numerous occasions involving appeals from judgments denying petitions raising claims cognizable under Rule 32 that we......
-
State v. Baker
...styled as such, Baker's motion was truly a Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief, see, e.g., Hiett v. State, 642 So.2d 492, 493 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) (“[A] petition for writ of habeas corpus contesting the validity of a conviction should [be] treated as a petition for p......
-
Cayson v. State
...habeas corpus contesting the validity of a conviction should [be] treated as a petition for post-conviction relief." Hiett v. State, 642 So.2d 492, 493 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). "`Rule 32 did not abolish the substantive right to post-conviction review under the statutory remedy of habeas corpus.......