Holland v. State

Citation621 So.2d 373
PartiesWilliam Warren HOLLAND v. STATE. CR 91-1421.
Decision Date22 January 1993
CourtAlabama Court of Criminal Appeals

William Warren Holland, pro se.

James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Joseph Marston III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

BOWEN, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from the summary denial of the appellant's petition for post-conviction relief under Rule 32, A.R.Crim.P.

In 1988, the appellant was convicted of pharmacy robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment. On direct appeal, this court affirmed that conviction without published opinion. Holland v. State, 555 So.2d 1200 (Ala.Cr.App.1989). The Alabama Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari, and the certificate of final judgment was issued by this Court on March 23, 1990. R. 6.

In 1992, the appellant, pro se, filed a 356-page handwritten petition for post-conviction relief. The petition alleged two grounds for relief: (1) that the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction of the appellant's trial, and (2) that the appellant was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal.

The attorney general argues that the petition was filed beyond the period of limitations set out in Rule 32.2(c), which provides that a petition alleging an ineffectiveness of counsel claim must be filed "within two (2) years after the issuance of the certificate of judgment by the Court of Criminal Appeals under Rule 41, A.R.App.P." Rule 32 sets out no period of limitations for a claim that "[t]he court was without jurisdiction to render judgment or impose sentence." See Rule 32.2(c) and Rule 32.1(b).

The following sequence of events is relevant here:

March 19, 1992--Appellant's certificate of service recites that he "placed said petition and two copies of same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid." R. 262.

March 24, 1992--The appellant's petition was stamped "filed" by the Mobile Circuit Clerk's office. R. 7, 262.

April 30, 1992--The circuit court summarily denied the petition. R. 7.

June 5, 1992--The appellant filed notice of appeal. R. 7.

July 8, 1992--The Mobile District Attorney's office filed a response to the petition. The response generally denied all the allegations in the petition, and claimed further that those allegations had been raised and addressed at trial or on appeal. R. 368-69.

The trial court adopted the District Attorney's response in a written order denying the petition and dated that order April 30, 1992. R. 370.

Initially, we note that the district attorney's response to the appellant's petition was untimely. The State filed a response to the petition on July 8, 69 days after the circuit court had denied the petition and three days after the appellant had filed a notice of appeal. Rule 32.7, A.R.Crim.P., requires that "[w]ithin thirty (30) days after the service of the petition, or within the time otherwise specified by the court, the district attorney ... shall file with the court and send to the petitioner ... a response." We further note that the district attorney's response did not raise any ground of preclusion based upon the period of limitations.

We hold that the petition for post-conviction relief was timely filed. The appellant's certificate of service averred that he placed the petition in the mail on March 19, four days before the limitations period elapsed. Although the petition may not have been received by the circuit clerk until March 24, one day after the statute of limitations ran, we conclude, based on the holding of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), that the appellant's petition was timely filed. See also Fallen v. United States, 378 U.S. 139, 84 S.Ct. 1689, 12 L.Ed.2d 760 (1964).

In Houston v. Lack, the Supreme Court held that delivery to prison authorities of a pro se notice of appeal from the denial of a habeas petition by an incarcerated petitioner constitutes "filing" within the meaning of Rule 4(a)(1), F.R.App.P. The Court observed:

"The situation of prisoners seeking to appeal without the aid of counsel is unique. Such prisoners cannot take the steps other litigants can take to monitor the processing of their notices of appeal and to ensure that the court clerk receives and stamps their notices of appeal before the 30-day deadline. Unlike other litigants, pro se prisoners cannot personally travel to the courthouse to see that the notice is stamped 'filed' or to establish the date on which the court received the notice. Other litigants may choose to entrust their appeals to the vagaries of the mail and the clerk's process for stamping incoming papers, but only the pro se prisoner is forced to do so by his situation. And if other litigants do choose to use the mail, they can at least place the notice directly into the hands of the United States Postal Service (or a private express carrier); and they can follow its progress by calling the court to determine whether the notice has been received and stamped, knowing that if the mail goes awry they can personally deliver notice at the last moment or that their monitoring will provide them with evidence to demonstrate either excusable neglect or that the notice was not stamped...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • Debardelaben v. Price, CASE NO. 1:12-CV-145-WHA [WO]
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama
    • 26 Febrero 2015
    ...when those documents are given to prison officials for mailing." Ex parte Allen, 825 So.2d 271, 272 (Ala. 2002); Holland v. State, 621 So.2d 373, 375 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993) ("[A] pro se incarcerated petitioner 'files' a Rule 32 petition when he hands the petition over to prison authorities fo......
  • Pierce v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 2 Marzo 1999
    ......"In some cases, recollection of the events at issue by the judge who presided at the original conviction 851 So.2d 565 may enable him summarily to dismiss a motion for postconviction relief." Little v. State, 426 So.2d 527, 529 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983) . See also Holland v. State, 621 So.2d 373, 375 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), opinion extended after remand, 654 So.2d 77 (Ala. Cr.App.1994); Ex parte Hill, 591 So.2d 462, 463 (Ala.1991) ; Sheats v. State, 556 So.2d 1094, 1095 (Ala.Cr.App.1989) . .          I. .         The appellant's first contention ......
  • Lynch v. Thomas, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-774-WHA
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama
    • 8 Septiembre 2014
    ...when those documents are given to prison officials for mailing." Ex parte Allen, 825 So. 2d 271, 272 (Ala. 2002); Holland v. State, 621 So. 2d 373, 375 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993) ("[A] pro se incarcerated petitioner 'files' a Rule 32 petition when he hands the petition over to prison authorities ......
  • Taite v. Stewart, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-00322-CG-N
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Southern District of Alabama
    • 28 Junio 2015
    ...or a petition for a writ of certiorari when those documents are given to prison officials for mailing." (citing Holland v. State, 621 So. 2d 373, 375 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993) ("[W]e hold that a pro se incarcerated petitioner 'files' a Rule 32 petition when he hands the petition over to prison......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT