Talley v. State
| Decision Date | 02 March 2001 |
| Citation | 802 So.2d 1106 |
| Parties | Darryl Marcus TALLEY v. STATE of Alabama. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Darryl Marcus Talley, appellant, pro se.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and P. David Bjurberg, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
Darryl Marcus Talley appeals from the circuit court's dismissal of his Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition for postconviction relief. The petition challenged his January 5, 1999, conviction for robbery in the first degree, a violation of § 13A-8-41, Ala.Code 1975. As a habitual felony offender with four prior felony convictions, Talley was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. See § 13A-5-9, Ala.Code 1975. We affirmed his conviction on May 28, 1999, without an opinion (No. CR-98-0702) 768 So.2d 1029 (table), and issued a certificate of judgment on June 15, 1999. The Rule 32 petition was filed on June 16, 2000. On August 3, 2000, the trial court granted Talley's motion for an extension of time within which to file an amendment to his Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition, giving him 30 days to file the amendment. On August 11, 2000, however, the trial judge purported to deny the petition, 22 days before the previously granted extension expired.
Talley argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed his Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief during the time the trial court had given him to amend his petition.
"
Cochran v. State, 548 So.2d 1062, 1075 (Ala.Crim.App.1989).
Although it appears from the record that the claims in Talley's original petition are either precluded, not sufficiently pleaded, or meritless, the trial judge should not have ruled on that petition before it considered Talley's amendment.
This cause is remanded with instructions that the trial court accept the amendment to Talley's Rule 32 petition and, if necessary, ask the State to respond to Talley's amended petition. Then, the trial court should, if necessary, conduct an evidentiary hearing on Talley's claims and make specific findings as to each allegation not precluded from its consideration by operation of a specified ground of preclusion of Rule 32.2. The trial court should also state any grounds of preclusion regarding Talley's claims.
"In the event the trial judge has personal knowledge of the facts underlying any of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rhone v. State
...does not unduly prejudice the opposing party or unduly delay the trial," Cochran, 548 So.2d at 1075; Allen, supra; and Talley v. State, 802 So.2d 1106 (Ala.Crim.App.2001). See also Ex parte Allen, 825 So.2d at 273 (noting that although leave to amend a Rule 32 petition is within the discret......
-
Ex parte Allen
...within the discretion of the trial court, and it should be freely granted. Rule 32.7(d) Ala.R.Crim.P.; see, e.g., Talley v. State, 802 So.2d 1106, 1107 (Ala.Crim.App. 2001). However, Rule 32.7(b) plainly states that amendments are allowed at any time "prior to the entry of judgment." The tr......
-
Wilson v. State, CR-02-0394.
...would provide a proper basis for such a refusal. "In Ex parte Allen, [825 So.2d 271 (Ala.2002),] this Court cited Talley v. State, 802 So.2d 1106, 1107 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), in support of our statement of the principles relevant to the amendment of Rule 32 petitions. In Talley, the Court of ......
-
Allen v. State
...should normally be freely allowed, if necessary for a full and fair determination on the merits. See, e.g., Talley v. State, 802 So.2d 1106, 1107-08 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000). However, such amendments are permitted only "prior to the entry of judgment." Rule 32.7(b), The potential for abuse of a......