Howard v. State
| Decision Date | 26 March 1993 |
| Citation | 616 So.2d 398 |
| Parties | Michael James HOWARD v. STATE. CR 92-235. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Michael James Howard, pro se.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Stephen Dodd, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner challenges his 1990 guilty plea convictions for rape in the first degree and burglary in the second degree. He alleges that he was not given notice of his right to appeal and that he was subjected to double jeopardy because both offenses arose out of the same transaction.
The following entries appear on the case action summary:
"10/13/92 Failure by petitioner to file any appropriate documents supporting his allegations; [t]he petition is denied." CR. 26 (emphasis added).
The record contains no explanation for the circuit court's dismissal of the petition 21 days after allowing the petitioner 45 days in which to file documents supporting his allegations. Fundamental fairness dictates that the judgment of the circuit court denying the petition on this ground must be reversed.
On appeal, the attorney general argues that the petition was filed beyond the two year period of limitations set out in Rule 32.2(c). However, in its motion to dismiss (which was itself untimely filed 1) the district attorney merely denied the allegations of the petition and did not raise any ground of preclusion. "The state shall have the burden of pleading any ground of preclusion." Rule 32.3, A.R.Crim.P. The state clearly did not meet its burden in this case. Consequently, the appellant was not put on notice that the state was relying on preclusion based upon the period of limitations. See Back v. State, 580 So.2d 588 (Ala.Cr.App.1991).
The judgment of the circuit court denying the petition for post-conviction relief is reversed. This cause is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
All Judges concur.
1 Rule 32.7, A.R.Crim.P. provides in pertinent part that "[w]ithin thirty (30) days after the service of the petition, or within the time otherwise specified by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
...the failure of the State to assert it. Any previous holdings to the contrary are hereby expressly overruled. See, e.g., Howard v. State, 616 So.2d 398 (Ala.Crim.App.1993)." Federal courts have also recognized a court's inherent authority to sua sponte apply a procedural default ground to a ......
-
Siebert v. Haley
...which was allowed by the Rule 32 court after the Petitioner was allowed to amend his petition. The Petitioner cites to Howard v. State, 616 So.2d 398 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) and Jackson v. State, 612 So.2d 1356, 1357 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), to support the argument that the Rule 32 court was in err......
-
Siebert v. Campbell
..."[a]ny previous holdings to the contrary are hereby expressly overruled." Williams, 783 So.2d at 137. It then cited Howard v. State, 616 So.2d 398 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), as an example. In Howard, the court had declined to apply the statute of limitations because it found the state had not met......
-
Siebert v. State
...raised as an affirmative defense in the first responsive pleading or it is waived, is without merit. Siebert relies on Howard v. State, 616 So.2d 398 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), and Jackson v. State, 612 So.2d 1356 (Ala. Cr.App.1992), in support of this claim. This case, however, is distinguishable ......