Symanowski v. State, CR-90-1161
Decision Date | 13 March 1992 |
Docket Number | CR-90-1161 |
Citation | 606 So.2d 171 |
Parties | Catherine Marie SYMANOWSKI v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Donald R. Cleveland, West Point, Ga., for appellant.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Frances H. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Catherine Marie Symanowski, was convicted of murder on April 20, 1990, and she was sentenced to life imprisonment on May 23, 1990. The trial record shows no filing of a notice of appeal or any post-trial motion after trial. On January 25, 1991, Symanowski requested a trial transcript. This request was denied on February 13, 1991. Symanowski then filed a request dated February 19, 1991, for appointment of counsel "to represent [her] in filing a motion for an appeal out of time ... on grounds that [she] was denied effective assistance of counsel." The circuit court appointed counsel for Symanowski on March 4, 1991, to explore "any issues that might be raised on appeal" and to "seek any post-trial remedies, including application for out-of-time appeal, which the ends of justice may require." On April 18, 1991, appointed counsel filed a motion for an order allowing an out-of-time appeal wherein he alleged that a Rule 20 motion "is not applicable and will not allow [Symanowski] to seek any relief in this cause" because the issues that Symanowski wished to argue could have been raised on direct appeal and thus would be procedurally barred. On May 6, 1991, the circuit court issued an order which states, in part, the following:
The court further ordered that counsel "carefully review the performance of trial counsel so that any issues pertaining to competency of counsel receive an adequate review." Notice of appeal was filed on May 9, 1991.
In support of her appeal, Symanowski has filed a brief raising six issues, one of which is ineffective trial counsel. The attorney general argues, in part, that this appeal should be dismissed because the circuit court had no jurisdiction to entertain Symanowski's motion for an out-of-time appeal and, thus, its order is void.
An appeal must be taken in the manner and within the time prescribed by the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, or it is not taken at all. See Rogers v. Singleton, 286 Ala. 83, 237 So.2d 473 (1970). A.R.App.P. 4(b) provides that in a criminal case the notice of appeal must be filed within 42 days of pronouncement of sentence, provided that the notice of appeal may be orally entered at the sentencing, or it must be filed within 42 days after the denial or overruling of a motion in arrest of judgment, motion for a new trial, or motion for judgment of acquittal filed within 30 days of sentence. "This 42-day period is to be applied uniformly...." Committee Comments, Rule 4. Rule 2(a)(1) provides: "An appeal shall be dismissed if the notice of appeal was not timely filed to invoke the jurisdiction of the appellate court." This requirement of timely filing of the notice of appeal is "a jurisdictional act"; "[i]t is the only step in the appellate process which is jurisdictional." Committee Comments, Rule 3. See also Lewis v. State, 463 So.2d 154, 155 (Ala.1985); Woods v. State, 371 So.2d 944, 945 (Ala.1979); Turner v. State, 365 So.2d 335, 335 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 365 So.2d 336 (1978).
"In the absence of statutory authorization, neither the trial nor appellate courts may extend or shorten the time for appeal ... even to relieve against mistake, inadvertence, accident, or misfortune...." Meeks v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 286 Ala. 513, 515, 243 So.2d 27, 28 (1970) ( ). "In the interest of finality of judgments, the prescribed time within which a notice of appeal must be filed with the trial court cannot be waived nor is it subject to extension of time by agreement of the parties or by order of this Court." Stewart v. Younger, 375 So.2d 428, 428 (Ala.1979) (emphasis in original). See also Hayden v. Harris, 437 So.2d 1283, 1287 (Ala.1983); State v. Kebe, 399 So.2d 348 (Ala.1981) ( ).
These principles were applied in Wood v. City of Birmingham, 380 So.2d 394 (Ala.Cr.App.1980). There, Wood was convicted in the municipal court of driving while intoxicated and driving without a license; he filed appeal bonds which were refused as being too late; his counsel then persuaded the municipal court to resentence him "to allow for appeal"; and, upon appeal, the circuit court dismissed his appeal. In holding that the municipal court was without statutory authority to "resentence" Wood to extend the time for filing of appeal and thus the circuit court correctly dismissed the appeal to that court, the Wood court explained the following:
Id. at 396. See also Longmire v. State, 443 So.2d 1265, 1269 (Ala.1982) ( ); Lee v. State, 342 So.2d 1390 (Ala.Cr.App.1977) ( ).
Symanowski, in arguing that this court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal based upon a circuit court's order granting an out-of-time appeal, directs our attention to Tyson v. State, 361 So.2d 1182 (Ala.Cr.App.1978). There, in reviewing the state's motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Tyson gave improper notice of appeal--oral notice at the probation revocation hearing, but timely since it was 28 days after sentencing--the court stated the following after holding the notice to be improper:
This holding of Tyson has been cited only twice. The court in Wilson v. State, 428 So.2d 197, 199 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), suspended the rules where Wilson "gave an oral notice of appeal during the time within which the rules would have required a written notice." In Ex parte Gamble, 413 So.2d 404 (Ala.Cr.App.1982), the court denied Gamble's petition for writ of error that was, in essence, an attempt to obtain an appeal of his conviction and sentence, after his appeal had been dismissed because he had given ineffective oral notice of appeal (at denial of probation rather than at sentencing) 43 days after sentencing and written notice 68 days after sentence. In so ruling, the Gamble court stated the following: Id. at 406.
The attorney general asks us to overrule the specific language of Gamble that seems to indicate that this court can suspend the rules regarding the time within which an appeal must be filed. We find the result of Gamble...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burgess v. State
...be taken in the manner and within the time prescribed by this State's rules of procedure. As this court stated in Symanowski v. State, 606 So.2d 171 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992): "`An appeal shall be dismissed if the notice of appeal was not timely filed to invoke the jurisdiction of the appellate co......
-
Saunders v. State
...previously filed pursuant to this rule and that failure was without fault on the petitioner's part."2 This Court in Symanowski v. State, 606 So.2d 171 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992), held that a circuit court has no jurisdiction to entertain a motion for an out-of-time appeal. The only method for o......
-
Brooks v. State
...judgment is rendered, should be used when computing the time within which the notice of appeal must be filed.'). "In Symanowski v. State, 606 So.2d 171 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), this Court "`An appeal must be taken in the manner and within the time prescribed by the Alabama Rules of Appellate Pr......
-
EX PARTE STATE
...McGee v. State, 620 So.2d 145 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), after remand, 620 So.2d 147 (Ala.Crim.App.1993); Symanowski v. State, 606 So.2d 171 (Ala. Crim.App.1992); Martinez v. State, 602 So.2d 504 (Ala.Crim.App.1992); Massey v. State, 587 So.2d 448 (Ala.Crim.App.1991); Hill v. State, 562 So.2d 138......