Johnson v. State
Decision Date | 30 November 2001 |
Citation | 835 So.2d 1077 |
Parties | Robert Leon JOHNSON v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Robert Leon Johnson, pro se.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Stephanie N. Morman, asst. atty. gen., for appellee. COBB, Judge.
On October 13, 1998, Johnson was convicted of first-degree robbery. On October 16, 1998, the trial court sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. On March 26, 1999, on appeal, this Court affirmed his conviction and sentence in an unpublished memorandum. Johnson v. State, (No. CR-98-0149) 767 So.2d 420 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (table). The certificate of judgment was issued on April 13, 1999.
On March 28, 2001, Johnson filed his first Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition and, on April 16, 2001, he filed an amendment to that petition. After the State responded, the circuit court summarily dismissed Johnson's petition. This appeal followed.
In his petition, Johnson claimed that his trial and appellate counsel had rendered ineffective assistance. In particular, Johnson claimed that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that it charged him with first-degree robbery, but alleged the theft of less than $1,000; by failing to object to the venire's not being sworn; by failing to file a motion to suppress the identification of the petitioner by an eyewitness; by failing to investigate the chain of custody of the security videotape of the robbery; by failing to issue a subpoena duces tecum for the gun used in the robbery; by not filing a pretrial motion to have the appellant mentally evaluated; and by failing to issue a subpoena duces tecum for the arrest photographs taken of Johnson. Johnson also pleaded the corres-ponding ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claims, stating that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise on direct appeal these same claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
The circuit court, upon denying Johnson's petition, initialed a line on a preprinted dismissal order that read, "This Court tried the case and finds that the petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof regarding claim(s)_, which allege ineffective assistance of counsel." (C.R. 3.)
On appeal, Johnson argues that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claims, and he reiterates his arguments from his petition to the circuit court.1 However, because we remand this case for the circuit court to address one of Johnson's claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, the outcome of which could result in reversible error, we refrain from addressing the remaining claims until the court has resolved that issue and returned the cause to this Court.
Initially, it is important to distinguish between a petitioner's burden to plead and a petitioner's burden to prove.
Ford v. State, 831 So.2d 641, 644 (Ala. Crim.App.2001). A claim may not be summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof at the initial pleading stage, a stage at which the petitioner has only a burden to plead. See Smith v. State, 581 So.2d 1283, 1284 (Ala. Crim.App.1991) () .
"[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 (Ala.2001). Reed v. State, 748 So.2d 231, 233 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bryant v. State
...his burden of proof at the initial pleading stage, a stage at which the petitioner has only the burden to plead. " Johnson v. State, 835 So.2d 1077, 1080 (Ala.Crim.App.2001). As this Court explained in Ford v. State, 831 So.2d 641 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) :"[A]t the pleading stage of Rule 32 pro......
-
Davis v. State
...Robert Austin's affidavit. But at the pleading stage, Mr. Davis is required to plead, not prove, his claims, Johnson v. State, 835 So.2d 1077, 1079–80 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), and he has done precisely that. Moreover, this Court has not yet admitted the affidavit, and Mr. Davis has not yet had ......
-
Genies v. State
...new trial that he would present. See Ex parte Hodges, No. 1100112, ––– So.3d ––––, ––––, 2011 WL 3780100, at *2 (Ala.2011);Johnson v. State, 835 So.2d at 1079–80. Moreover, at the pleading stage, the trial court is not required to, nor should it, assess, before it is offered, the quality of......
-
Smith v. State
...his burden of proof at the initial pleading stage, a stage at which the petitioner has only a burden to plead.”Johnson v. State, 835 So.2d 1077, 1079–80 (Ala.Crim.App.2001). See Kelley v. State, 985 So.2d 972 (Ala.Crim.App.2007), and Borden v. State, 891 So.2d 393 (Ala.Crim.App.2002) (each ......