Hyde v. State
| Decision Date | 03 March 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. CR-04-1092.,CR-04-1092. |
| Citation | 950 So.2d 344 |
| Parties | James Matthew HYDE v. STATE of Alabama. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Evan Jaffe, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Troy King, atty. gen., and Jeremy W. McIntire, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
James Matthew Hyde appeals the circuit court's summary denial of his Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition for postconviction relief, in which he attacked his capital-murder convictions and his sentence of death.
In 1996, Hyde was convicted of three counts of capital murder in connection with the murder of Ernest Andrew Whitten. The murder was made capital (1) because it was committed during the course of a burglary, see § 13A-5-40(a)(4), Ala.Code 1975; (2) because Whitten was a grand-jury witness, see § 13A-5-40(a)(14), Ala. Code 1975; and (3) because Whitten had been subpoenaed to testify at the trial of Larry Wayne Whitehead,1 see § 13A-5-40(a)(14), Ala.Code 1975. The jury recommended, by a vote of 7-5 that Hyde be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The trial court overrode the jury's verdict and sentenced Hyde to death. Hyde's convictions and sentence were affirmed on appeal, Hyde v. State, 778 So.2d 199 (Ala.Crim.App.1998), aff'd, 778 So.2d 237 (Ala.2000), and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari review, Hyde v. Alabama, 532 U.S. 907, 121 S.Ct. 1233, 149 L.Ed.2d 142 (2001). This Court issued a certificate of judgment on September 20, 2000. The facts of the case are set forth in this Court's opinion in Hyde v. State, 778 So.2d 199 (Ala.Crim.App.1998).
On January 11, 2002, Hyde, through counsel, submitted a Rule 32 petition to the circuit clerk's office accompanied by a request to proceed in forma pauperis; he submitted an amended petition on May 1, 2002. The circuit court summarily denied Hyde's petition and the amendment on February 1, 2004, and Hyde appealed. By order issued on May 7, 2004, this Court remanded this case for the circuit court to determine whether it had granted Hyde's request to proceed in forma pauperis before it ruled on Hyde's petition. On May 17, 2004, the circuit court granted Hyde's request to proceed in forma pauperis and a request to file another amended petition. Hyde filed a second amended petition on May 20, 2004. In an opinion issued on July 23, 2004, this Court dismissed Hyde's appeal on the ground that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to rule on Hyde's Rule 32 petition without having first granted Hyde's request to proceed in forma pauperis; we also noted that the court's order on remand allowing Hyde to file an amended petition exceeded the scope of our remand order and, thus, was void for lack of jurisdiction. Hyde v. State, 894 So.2d 808 (Ala.Crim.App.2004).
On September 22, 2004, the circuit court issued an order accepting Hyde's May 20, 2004, amendment to his petition and, after numerous additional filings by both Hyde and the State, summarily denied Hyde's amended petition on February 1, 2005. Hyde filed a notice of appeal on March 8, 2005. By order dated August 11, 2005, this Court remanded this case for the circuit court to vacate Hyde's death sentence and to resentence Hyde to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole because Hyde was 17 years old at the time of the crime. See Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005). The circuit court complied with our instructions and resentenced Hyde to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
"[W]hen the facts are undisputed and an appellate court is presented with pure questions of law, that court's review in a Rule 32 proceeding is de novo." Ex parte White, 792 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Ala. 2001). "However, where there are disputed facts in a postconviction proceeding and the circuit court resolves those disputed facts, `[t]he standard of review on appeal ... is whether the trial judge abused his discretion when he denied the petition.'" Boyd v. State, 913 So.2d 1113, 1122 (Ala. Crim.App.2003), quoting Elliott v. State, 601 So.2d 1118, 1119 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). "`[I]f the circuit court is correct for any reason, even though it may not be the stated reason, we will not reverse its denial of the petition.'" Scroggins v. State, 827 So.2d 878, 880 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), quoting Reed v. State, 748 So.2d 231, 233 (Ala.Crim.App.1999). Moreover, "[w]e will not review issues not listed and argued in brief." Brownlee v. State, 666 So.2d 91, 93 (Ala.Crim.App.1995). Therefore, those claims that Hyde presented in his petition but does not pursue on appeal are deemed to be abandoned and will not be considered by this Court.
Before considering the arguments presented by Hyde on appeal, we must first determine whether Hyde's petition was timely filed within the two-year limitations period applicable to this case under former Rule 32.2(c).2
As noted above, Hyde submitted his petition and a request to proceed in forma pauperis on January 11, 2002, within the two-year limitations period. However, the circuit court did not grant Hyde's request to proceed in forma pauperis until May 17, 2004, long after the limitations period had expired. In Clemons v. State, [Ms. CR-01-1355, June 24, 2005] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (), this Court held that a Rule 32 petition is deemed to be filed the date the circuit court grants the request to proceed in forma pauperis;3 we stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woods v. State
... ... If, assuming every factual allegation in a Rule 32 petition to be true, a court cannot determine whether the petitioner is entitled to relief, the petitioner has not satisfied the burden of pleading under Rule 32.3 and Rule 32.6(b)." Hyde v. State, 950 So.2d 344, 356 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) (emphasis added). "The pleading requirements of Rule 32 apply equally to capital cases in which the death penalty has been imposed." Taylor v. State, 157 So.3d 131, 140 (Ala.Crim.App.2010). More recently, the Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte ... ...
-
Miller v. State, CR-08-1413
... ... App.), cert, denied, 495 U.S. 911, 110 S.Ct. 1938, 109 L.Ed. 2d 301 (1990).' " Bell v. State , 593 So. 2d 123, 126 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). See also Dobyne v. State , 805 So. 2d 733, 741 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000); Jones v. State , 753 So. 2d 1174, 1180 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). "More recently in Hyde v. State , 950 So. 2d 344 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006), we stated: "'[T]his Court has repeatedly upheld the practice of adopting the State's proposed order when denying a Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief. See, e.g., Coral v. State , 900 So. 2d 1274, 1288 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004), overruled on ... ...
-
Ingram v. State
... ... 1938, 109 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990)." " ' Bell v. State, 593 So.2d 123, 126 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), cert. denied, 593 So.2d 123 (Ala.), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 991, 112 S.Ct. 2981, 119 L.Ed.2d 599 (1992).' " Quoting Jones v. State, 753 So.2d 1174, 1180 (Ala.Cr.App.1999). As we more recently stated in Hyde v. State, 950 So.2d 344, 371 (Ala.Crim.App.2006): "Hyde contends that the circuit court erred in adopting the State's proposed order. Specifically, he argues that there are numerous factual and legal errors in the order that indicate that the order does not represent the court's own independent ... ...
-
Townes v. State
... ... Supreme Court explained: " "To rise to the level of plain error, the claimed error must not only seriously affect a defendant's substantial rights, but it must also have an unfair prejudicial impact on the jury's deliberations." ' Ex parte Bryant , 951 So.2d 724, 727 (Ala.2002) (quoting Hyde v. State , 778 So.2d 199, 209 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) ). In United States v. Young , 470 U.S. 1, 15 (1985), the United States Supreme Court, construing the federal plain-error rule, stated: " The Rule authorizes the Courts of Appeals to correct only "particularly egregious errors," United States v ... ...