Swicegood v. State
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | BOWEN |
| Citation | 646 So.2d 159 |
| Parties | Paul SWICEGOOD v. STATE. CR 93-1180. |
| Decision Date | 08 July 1994 |
Page 159
v.
STATE.
Page 160
Paul Swicegood, pro se.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and James Prude, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
BOWEN, Presiding Judge.
This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The appellant, Paul Swicegood, was convicted in 1989 of burglary in the second degree and was "released under the conditions of bail-bond" until November 1991, when his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. 565 So.2d 1206. The appellant claims that he is "entitled to credit for time spent under the restraints of bail/bond to be credited towards the service of his sentence." C.R. 3; Appellant's brief at 3. The circuit court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus, "it not being one of the motions recognized under the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure." C.R. 1.
The circuit court denied the petition for the wrong reason. Habeas corpus is a valid remedy for certain alleged wrongs, even under the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. See H. Maddox, Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure § 32.0 at 783 (1990). See also Appendix to Rule 32, A.R.Crim.P. ("[t]his form is not to be used to challenge loss of good time deductions from sentence, changes in custody classification, or jail or prison conditions").
The appellant is seeking relief from his sentence and he should have filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32. Rule 32 "displaces all post-trial remedies except post trial motions under Rule 24[, which covers motions for new trial and motions in arrest of judgment,] and appeal. Any other post-conviction petition seeking relief from a conviction or sentence shall be treated as a proceeding under th[at] rule." Rule 32.4, A.R.Crim.P. Technically, the circuit court should have returned the "habeas corpus" petition to the appellant in order to give the appellant the opportunity to file a proper Rule 32 petition. Rule 32.6(a).
However, where the judgment of the circuit court denying a petition for post-conviction relief is correct for any reason, it will be affirmed by this Court, even if the circuit court stated an incorrect reason for its denial. See Holladay v. State, 629 So.2d 673, 678 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1171, 114 S.Ct. 1208, 127 L.Ed.2d 555 (1994). In this case, the circuit court's denial of the petition is due to be affirmed because the appellant's substantive claim is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pierce v. State
...for the denial. Sumlin v. State, 710 So.2d 941 (Ala.Cr. App.1998); Long v. State, 675 So.2d 532 (Ala.Cr.App.1996); Swicegood v. State, 646 So.2d 159 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Roberts v. State, 516 So.2d 936 (Ala.Cr.App.1987); Jenkins v. State, 516 So.2d 935 (Ala.Cr. App.1987). Because all of the a......
-
Davis v. State, CR-96-1093
...because the trial court stated an incorrect reason for the denial. Long v. State, 675 So.2d 532 (Ala.Cr.App.1996); Swicegood v. State, 646 So.2d 159 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Roberts v. State, 516 So.2d 936 (Ala.Cr.App.1987); Jenkins v. State, 516 So.2d 935 (Ala.Cr.App.1987). Because all of the ap......
-
Dobyne v. State
...for the denial. Sumlin v. State, 710 So.2d 941 (Ala.Cr. App.1998); Long v. State, 675 So.2d 532 (Ala.Cr.App.1996); Swicegood v. State, 646 So.2d 159 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Roberts v. State, 516 So.2d 936 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987); Jenkins v. State, 516 So.2d 935 Pierce v. State, ___ So.2d at ___. More......
-
Davis v. State, CR–10–0224.
...any reason, it will be affirmed by this Court, even if the circuit court stated an incorrect reason for its denial." Swicegood v. State, 646 So.2d 159, 160 (Ala.Crim.App.1994).As noted, Davis alleged that Judge Austin entered the jury room during both the guilt-phase and the penalty-phase d......
-
Pierce v. State
...for the denial. Sumlin v. State, 710 So.2d 941 (Ala.Cr. App.1998); Long v. State, 675 So.2d 532 (Ala.Cr.App.1996); Swicegood v. State, 646 So.2d 159 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Roberts v. State, 516 So.2d 936 (Ala.Cr.App.1987); Jenkins v. State, 516 So.2d 935 (Ala.Cr. App.1987). Because all of the a......
-
Davis v. State, CR-96-1093
...because the trial court stated an incorrect reason for the denial. Long v. State, 675 So.2d 532 (Ala.Cr.App.1996); Swicegood v. State, 646 So.2d 159 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Roberts v. State, 516 So.2d 936 (Ala.Cr.App.1987); Jenkins v. State, 516 So.2d 935 (Ala.Cr.App.1987). Because all of the ap......
-
Dobyne v. State
...for the denial. Sumlin v. State, 710 So.2d 941 (Ala.Cr. App.1998); Long v. State, 675 So.2d 532 (Ala.Cr.App.1996); Swicegood v. State, 646 So.2d 159 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Roberts v. State, 516 So.2d 936 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987); Jenkins v. State, 516 So.2d 935 Pierce v. State, ___ So.2d at ___. More......
-
Davis v. State, CR–10–0224.
...any reason, it will be affirmed by this Court, even if the circuit court stated an incorrect reason for its denial." Swicegood v. State, 646 So.2d 159, 160 (Ala.Crim.App.1994).As noted, Davis alleged that Judge Austin entered the jury room during both the guilt-phase and the penalty-phase d......