Spencer v. State (In re Spencer)
Decision Date | 16 September 2016 |
Docket Number | 1150683 |
Parties | EX PARTE Joe Louis SPENCER (In re Joe Louis Spencer v. State of Alabama) |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Joe Louis Spencer, pro se.
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and Andrew L. Brasher, deputy atty. gen., and Andy Scott Poole, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.
We granted this petition for a writ of certiorari to address whether the "prison-mailbox rule" applies to a motion for sentence reconsideration under Ala. Code 1975, § 13A–5–9.1, once the repeal of the statute effectively placed a time limitation on such motions. We determine that the prison-mailbox rule does apply, and we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings.
Joe Louis Spencer filed a motion for sentence reconsideration under Ala. Code 1975, § 13A–5–9.1, and Kirby v. State, 899 So.2d 968 (Ala.2004). The motion stated that it was deposited in the prison-system mailbox on March 6, 2014; however, the motion was not received and filed in the circuit clerk's office until March 23, 2015.
On March 27, 2015, the circuit court denied Spencer's motion because it was "filed" after March 13, 2014, the effective date of Act No. 2014–165, Ala. Acts 2014, which repealed § 13A–5–9.1 for all cases in which a sentence-reconsideration motion was not then pending.1 Spencer filed a motion to reconsider the circuit court's order, arguing that he was entitled to the benefit of the "mailbox rule," which would deem his motion filed on March 6, 2014, the date it was placed into the prison mail system. Spencer's motion to reconsider was denied,2 and Spencer appealed.
The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Spencer's appeal by an order, noting that § 13A–5–9.1 had been repealed effective March 13, 2014, and concluding that there is now no vehicle by which a circuit court can reconsider Spencer's sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the prison-mailbox rule applies only to "time-sensitive" pleadings and does not apply to motions for sentence reconsideration because, it reasoned, such motions do not have a time limitation.
The Court of Criminal Appeals' order stated, in pertinent part:
Spencer v. State, 224 So.3d 197, 198 (Ala.Crim.App.2015).
In his dissent to the Court of Criminal Appeals' order, Judge Burke stated:
Spencer, 224 So.3d at 199–200 (Burke, J., dissenting) (emphasis added).
"This Court reviews pure questions of law in criminal cases de novo." Ex parte Key, 890 So.2d 1056, 1059 (Ala.2003). See also Sheffield v. State, 194 So.3d 911, 912 (Ala.2014) ( ); Ex parte Walker, 152 So.3d 1247 (Ala.2014) (to same effect).
Spencer asserts that the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision conflicts with Ex parte Allen, 825 So.2d 271 (Ala.2002), regarding the principle that the mailbox rule applies "to prisoner filings when a time deadline is involved." Specifically, Spencer contends that the repeal of § 13A–5–9.1"created a time deadline for filing" and that the Court of Criminal Appeals' order failed to recognize that fact. Id.
In Allen, this Court stated:
The Allen Court stated that it was "cognizant of the policy concerns outlined" in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).3 825 So.2d at 273. Allen held, however, that the prison-mailbox rule would not be extended to the filing of an amendment or a supplement to a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition where the trial court had not established a deadline for such a filing.
The issue in this case is whether the repeal of § 13A–5–9.1 created a deadline or a time limitation that warrants the application of the prison-mailbox rule to a motion for sentence reconsideration. The order issued by the Court of Criminal Appeals summarily concluded that the prison-mailbox rule did not apply because, it said, " § 13A–5–9.1 did not impose any time requirements." 224 So.3d at 198. However, the order did not adequately address the time requirement effectively imposed by the repeal of § 13A–5–9.1. Judge Burke persuasively addressed that issue, concluding that the repeal of § 13A–5–9.1 created a deadline that did warrant application of the prison-mailbox rule. Judge Burke stated:
Spencer, 224 So.3d at 199–200 (Burke, J., dissenting) (emphasis added).
We conclude that Judge Burke's position is correct and that it is consistent with the compelling policy behind the judicially created prison-mailbox rule. See note 3, supra.4 It is contradictory to conclude, as does the Court of Criminal Appeals, that the prison-mailbox rule does not apply because there was no deadline in this case, but then to dismiss Spencer's motion because he missed the deadline imposed by the repeal of § 13A–5–9.1. We hold that this case does indeed involve a deadline and that the prison-mailbox rule applies.5
We reverse the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissing Spencer's appeal, and we remand the cause to that court for the entry of an order consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Spencer v. State, CR-14-1004.
...16, 2016Joe Louis Spencer, pro se.Luther Strange, atty. gen., and Andy Scott Poole, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.Prior report: Ala., 224 So.3d 200.On Remand from the Alabama Supreme Court WELCH, Judge.Joe Louis Spencer filed a motion for sentence reconsideration under § 13A–5–9.1, Ala. ......