W.B.S. v. State
Citation | 244 So.3d 133 |
Decision Date | 28 April 2017 |
Docket Number | CR–15–0956 |
Parties | W.B.S. v. STATE of Alabama |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Bruce A. Gardner, Huntsville, for appellant.
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and Jack W. Willis, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
W.B.S. appeals the Etowah Juvenile Court's summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We remand.
On June 9, 2010, delinquency petitions were filed in the Juvenile Court of Etowah County, charging W.B.S. with four counts of first-degree sexual abuse, see § 13A–6–66(a)(1), Ala. Code 1975, one count of first-degree sodomy, see § 13A–6–63(a)(1), Ala. Code 1975, and one count of resisting arrest, see § 13A–10–41, Ala. Code 1975. After conducting a hearing on the delinquency petitions, the juvenile court found five charges to be true—three counts of first-degree sexual abuse, one count of first-degree sodomy, and one count of resisting arrest—and adjudicated W.B.S. delinquent. The juvenile court then ordered that W.B.S. be committed to the Alabama Department of Youth Services sexual-offender program for an indefinite period and, further, ordered W.B.S. to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
W.B.S. appealed his delinquency adjudications to this Court, which adjudications this Court affirmed in an unpublished memorandum issued on February 3, 2012. See W.B.S. v. State (No. CR–10–1806, Feb. 3, 2012), 130 So.3d 587 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012) (table). In that unpublished memorandum, we summarized the facts supporting W.B.S.'s delinquency adjudications:
In his direct appeal, W.B.S. argued that the juvenile court erred when it denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal because, he said, the State failed to present any evidence "regarding the element of forcible compulsion, a requirement for both first-degree sexual abuse and first-degree sodomy." In addressing this claim, this Court concluded that W.B.S.'s argument was not preserved for appellate review but explained:
(Emphasis added.)1
Thereafter, on December 21, 2012, W.B.S. filed a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief in the juvenile court. In his petition, W.B.S. alleged that his counsel was ineffective because, he said, his trial counsel failed to make a "proper motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's case." According to W.B.S.:
(Record in W.B.S. v. State (CR–12–1336), C. 36.) The juvenile court concluded, however, that Rule 32 is applicable only to a "Defendant convicted of a criminal offense" and "a juvenile is not ‘convicted of a criminal offense’ so as to be able to take advantage of the provisions of Rule 32." (Record in CR–12–1336, C. 42–43.) W.B.S. appealed the juvenile court's decision to this Court.
On appeal, this Court examined the record and determined that We explained:
W.B.S. v. State (No. CR–12–1336, Aug. 21, 2013) ( ).
W.B.S. v. State, 192 So.3d 417, 417–19 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015) (footnotes omitted).
On W.B.S.'s appeal from that decision, this Court agreed with the circuit court and affirmed its judgment summarily dismissing W.B.S.'s Rule 32 petition. In doing so, this Court first rejected W.B.S.'s contention that Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., could be used as a mechanism through which a juvenile could obtain "post-adjudication" relief, explaining:
"Because juvenile-delinquency proceedings are ‘quasi-criminal in nature,’ the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure are not applicable to those proceedings, see Rule 1(a), Ala. R. Juv. P., and Rule 60(b) cannot be the mechanism by which W.B.S.—or any other juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent—can challenge trial counsel's effectiveness."
W.B.S., 192 So.3d at 419. This Court then addressed whether Rule 32 applies to a juvenile court adjudication, explaining:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
K.D.D. v. State
...Juvenile Court a petition for a writ of error coram nobis challenging his adjudication and resulting sentence. See W.B.S. v. State, 244 So. 3d 133 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017) (holding that a petition for a writ of error coram nobis is the proper means by which to challenge a delinquency adjudica......
-
K.D.D. v. State
...Juvenile Court a petition for a writ of error coram nobis challenging his adjudication and resulting sentence. See W.B.S. v. State, 244 So. 3d 133 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017) (holding that a petition for a writ of error coram nobis is the proper means by which to challenge a delinquency adjudica......
-
M.B. v. B.B.
...... Alabama for six months at the time the dependency action was filed, "[i]t did not appear that" Alabama "could be said to be the child's ‘home state’ under" the UCCJEA and, therefore, that the record did not demonstrate that the juvenile court had jurisdiction to resolve that action.3 M.B. v. ......
-
M.B. v. B.B.
......Code 1975,] a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination only if:"(1) This state is the home state of the child on the date of the ......