Taunton v. State
Citation | 562 So.2d 615 |
Parties | Ex parte State of Alabama. (Re Ronald TAUNTON v. STATE). 88-1422. |
Decision Date | 06 April 1990 |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Petition for writ of Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals (5 Div. 564). Appeal from the Circuit Court, Elmore County, No. CC-88-595.70, John B. Bush, J.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and P. David Bjurberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Dennis N. Balske of Balske and Van Almen, Montgomery, for respondent.
Prior report: Ala.Cr.App., 562 So.2d 614.
WRIT QUASHED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.
The question presented in this case seems simple enough--when a prisoner is seeking to receive credit on his sentence for the time he spent in jail awaiting trial, what kind of petition should he file and where should he file it? The Court of Criminal Appeals held that he could file a petition for writ of habeas corpus under the provisions of Ala.Code 1975, § 15-21-6, "addressed to the nearest circuit judge." The State contends that the petition should have been filed "in the court of original jurisdiction" because the petitioner is claiming that the court of original jurisdiction imposed on him a sentence that exceeds the maximum authorized by law, a ground for post-conviction relief included in Temporary Rule 20, A.R.Crim.P. 1
Temporary Rule 20.1, in pertinent part, states that "any person who has been convicted of a criminal offense may, without prepayment of any fee, institute a proceeding in the court of original conviction to secure appropriate relief on the ground that: ... (c) The sentence imposed exceeds the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise not authorized by law" (emphasis added).
I dissent in this case because I believe that this Court, under its rule-making power, has set out the place where petitions like this one should be filed, and the procedure for handling such petitions. Any thought that Rule 20 would not afford a petitioner as much relief as a habeas corpus petition filed under Title 15 I believe to be mistaken. In other words, the same relief prayed for by petition under Title 15 is available for him under Rule 20, and this Court is the proper body to determine what procedure should be used in according a citizen his or her right to post-conviction relief, so long as that procedure accords with the constitutional right to relief from an illegal sentence.
In this dissent, I will spell out why I think that this Court, by rule, has prescribed the procedure to be used in this case, and why the Court of Criminal Appeals is in error in concluding that Temporary Rule 20 has the effect of a "chipping away" of the constitutional right to petition for habeas corpus.
The Court of Criminal Appeals, in support of its conclusion that petitioner could file a habeas corpus petition addressed to the nearest circuit judge, states that "a petition for writ of habeas corpus is the proper procedure to determine whether the appellant has been credited with the correct amount of actual time spent incarcerated pending trial for the offense for which he was eventually sentenced" (em phasis added), citing Hardy v. State, 534 So.2d 328 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); Smith v. State, 504 So.2d 1224 (Ala.Cr.App.1987); and Boutwell v. State, 488 So.2d 33 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). I respectfully disagree with that conclusion.
At the time those cited cases were decided, the provisions of Ala.Code 1975, Title 15, Chapter 21, were applicable, and admittedly Title 15 then established the procedure for filing such petitions, but this petition was filed after the effective date of Temporary Rule 20, and, in my opinion, the provisions of Rule 20 should govern. The cases cited by the Court of Criminal Appeals are not authority to support the Court's conclusion that habeas corpus is the "proper procedure."
The Court of Criminal Appeals disagrees with the trial judge, who was of the opinion that Rule 20 did control, but in that disagreement, I feel, it has made a policy choice, reserved to this Court, as to what procedure can be used in cases such as this. The Court of Criminal Appeals is clearly aware that there is a statutory procedure set out for obtaining habeas corpus relief and a procedure established under Rule 20, because the Court presents the arguments concerning whether the statutory procedure should apply or whether Rule 20 should apply, but concludes:
Taunton v. State, 562 So.2d 614, at 615 (Ala.Crim.App.1989).
The Court of Criminal Appeals has questioned whether Rule 20 sufficiently protects a citizen's constitutional rights, and that Court makes a policy decision concerning what is the best procedure and reaches a conclusion that Rule 20 constitutes a "chipping away" at the writ of habeas corpus. The Court of Criminal Appeals says that a two-year statute of limitations would apply in this case. I do not personally see that any ground of "preclusion" exists here. Clearly, the "statute of limitations" provisions of Rule 20.2(c) are inapplicable to this particular petition. 2 This Court heard arguments from both sides of this issue before it adopted Temporary Rule 20, and this Court made some policy choices concerning how post-conviction remedies would be handled in this State. In my opinion, this Court made a policy choice concerning the place where a petition should be filed when the petition claims that the original sentence exceeds the time allowed by law. 3
As the Court of Criminal Appeals states, the writ of habeas corpus is of constitutional origin, and neither this Court nor the legislature can abolish it. On the other hand, the procedure for handling petitions is the realm of the legislature, exercising its legislative powers, or this Court, exercising its rule-making powers.
Admittedly, before the adoption of Temporary Rule 20, the procedure for handling post-conviction petitions, such as this one, was governed by provisions of the Alabama Code, and as I have already pointed out, the fact that a sentence may exceed the maximum allowed by law could be raised by a habeas corpus petition, but the fact that a different procedure was adopted by this Court after much debate and study does not diminish the relief that can be obtained, just the manner in which it can be awarded in appropriate cases. 4
The legislature has indeed prescribed the procedure for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Ala.Code 1975, §§ 15-21-1 through 15-21-34, and those Code sections apply to pre-trial detentions, persons confined as insane, and certain post-trial detentions not provided for by Temporary Rule 20. The statutory provisions apply, however, "only" if this Court has not adopted a contrary procedure. In Ala.Code 1975, § 15-1-1, the legislature provided:
"Any provisions of this title regulating procedure shall apply only if the procedural subject matter is not governed by rules of practice and procedure adopted by the supreme court of Alabama." (Emphasis added).
The procedure for filing habeas corpus petitions is contained in "this title" (Title 15), prescribing which is mentioned in § 15-1-1; therefore, the provisions of Title 15 prescribing the procedure for seeking post-conviction remedies in regard to claims such as this would not apply, because Title 15 applies "only" if this Court has not adopted a contrary...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Collier v. State ).
... ... See, e.g., Hardy v. State, 534 So.2d 328 (Ala.Cr.App.1988); Smith v. State, 504 So.2d 1224 (Ala.Cr.App.1987); Boutwell v. State, 488 So.2d 33 (Ala.Cr.App.1986).Taunton v. State, 562 So.2d 614, 614 (Ala.Crim.App.1989). That holding has been consistently reaffirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals. See, e.g., Sundberg v. Thomas, 13 So.3d 43 (Ala.Crim.App.2009); Culbreth v. State, 966 So.2d 912 (Ala.Crim.App.2007); and Ware v. State, 807 So.2d 594 ... ...
-
Anderson v. State
... ... However, it is well established that a Rule 32 petition is not the proper procedure by which to review such a question: a petition for writ of habeas corpus is the proper vehicle. Taunton v. State, 562 So.2d 614 (Ala.Cr.App.1989), cert. denied, 562 So.2d 615 (Ala.1990). Section 15-21-6, Code of Alabama 1975, requires that a habeas corpus petition be addressed to and filed in the circuit court nearest the inmate's place of incarceration. We reiterated in Ex parte Henley, 675 So.2d ... ...
-
Adcock v. State
... ... "It is well established that a petition for writ of habeas corpus is the proper procedure to determine whether the appellant has been credited with the correct amount of actual time spent incarcerated pending trial for the offense for which he was eventually sentenced." Taunton v. State, 562 So.2d 614, 614 (Ala.Cr.App.1989), cert. quashed, 562 So.2d 615 (Ala.1990). "Where a person is confined in the penitentiary, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus 'must be addressed to the nearest circuit court judge.' § 15-21-6, Ala.Code 1975." Breach v. State, 687 So.2d 1257 ... ...
-
Copeland v. State
... ... This court reversed the circuit court's denial and remanded the cause to the circuit court with orders for the circuit court to return the petition to the petitioner to be amended to comply with the requisite form. Id. at 1074 ... Moreover, in Taunton v. State, 562 So.2d 614 (Ala.Cr.App.1989), cert. quashed, 562 So.2d 615 (Ala.1990), a trial court improperly held that the claims in a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by a petitioner should have been raised in a Rule 20 petition, and therefore dismissed the petition on those grounds. This ... ...