Matthews v. State
Decision Date | 08 October 2021 |
Docket Number | CR-20-0462 |
Parties | Artis Cleonce Matthews v. State of Alabama |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (CC-16-876.61)
Artis Cleonce Matthews appeals the Montgomery Circuit Court's denial, after a hearing, of his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss his appeal.
In 2016, Matthews was convicted of two counts of attempted murder. The trial court subsequently sentenced him, as a habitual felony offender, to life imprisonment for each conviction, the sentences to run consecutively. This Court affirmed Matthews's convictions and sentences on direct appeal in an unpublished memorandum issued on December 8 2017. Matthews v. State (No. CR-16-0768), 268 So.3d 608 (Ala.Crim.App.2017) (table). The Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari review, and this Court issued a certificate of judgment on February 16, 2018.
Matthews acting pro se, filed his Rule 32 petition on May 14, 2019. He filed the standard form found in the Appendix to Rule 32, and checked on the form as the ground for relief that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. He did not attach a supplement setting out the details of his claim. The record also contains no request to proceed in forma pauperis. Nonetheless, the circuit court issued an order on May 28 2019, finding Matthews to be indigent and appointing counsel to represent him. That same day, the circuit court scheduled a hearing for August 16, 2019, and gave the State 30 days to respond to the petition. On July 24, 2019, the State filed an answer and a motion to dismiss Matthews's petition arguing that the petition should be summarily dismissed as insufficiently pleaded. On July 25, 2019, the circuit court issued an order summarily dismissing Matthews's petition on the ground that it was insufficiently pleaded.
On August 12, 2019, Matthews filed a pro se motion to reconsider. In that motion, Matthews argued that the circuit court erred in summarily dismissing his petition without affording his appointed counsel the opportunity to amend the petition and that his appointed counsel had been ineffective for not consulting with him and filing an amended petition on his behalf.[1] On August 16, 2019, appointed counsel filed a notice of appearance. Matthews, through appointed counsel, filed an amended motion to reconsider on August 26, 2019, arguing that the failure to amend the petition before the court had summarily dismissed it was because counsel had been unaware of her appointment to the case. On August 28, 2019, the circuit court issued an order setting aside its July 25, 2019, summary dismissal of Matthews's petition.
Matthews, through appointed counsel, filed an amended Rule 32 petition on September 28, 2019, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for introducing into evidence his prior convictions, for not introducing into evidence a police-department supplemental offense report, and for not pursuing an intoxication defense, and that the trial court had improperly constructively amended the indictment during its jury instructions. The circuit court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Matthews's petition on January 27, 2020. On January 30, 2020, the State filed a supplemental answer to the petition, arguing that Matthews's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were meritless and that Matthews had abandoned his claim that the trial court had improperly amended the indictment because he had not presented any evidence regarding that claim at the hearing. On March 8, 2021, the circuit court issued an order denying Matthews's petition. Matthews filed a notice of appeal on March 24, 2021.
Matthews's appeal is due to be dismissed because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to set aside its July 25, 2019, summary dismissal of Matthews's petition. In Loggins v. State, 910 So.2d 146 (Ala.Crim.App.2005), this Court faced a similar situation. There, the circuit court issued an order summarily dismissing Kenneth Loggins's Rule 32 petition on December 10, 2001. Six months later, Loggins filed a motion requesting that the circuit court set aside its summary dismissal. On May 28, 2002, the circuit court granted Loggins's motion, set aside its December 2001 order, and then reissued the order. Loggins appealed, and we dismissed the appeal, explaining:
910 So.2d at 148-50 (footnotes omitted).
Similarly, here, the circuit court lost jurisdiction to modify its summary dismissal of Matthews's petition 30 days after July 25, 2019, or on August 26, 2019, [2] two days before it issued the August 28, 2019, order purporting to set aside the summary dismissal. Although Matthews's August 12, 2019, motion to reconsider and his August 26, 2019, amended motion to reconsider were both timely filed, they did not extend the circuit court's jurisdiction beyond August 26, 2019, and both were deemed denied as a matter of law when the circuit court lost jurisdiction. Therefore, the circuit court's August 28, 2019, order and all subsequent orders and proceedings in this case, including the evidentiary hearing and the circuit court's March 8, 2021, order purporting to deny Matthews's petition after the hearing, are void for lack of jurisdiction.
Because "[a] void judgment will not support an appeal," Madden v. State, 885 So.2d 841, 844 (Ala.Crim.App.2004), ...
To continue reading
Request your trial