Carl Brad Ward v. State of Alabama.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Carl Brad Ward v. State of Alabama.

89 So. 3d 729, 2011 WL 3241496, 2011 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 54

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedJuly 29, 2011

DocketCR-08-1131

StatusPublished

This text of 89 So. 3d 729 (Carl Brad Ward v. State of Alabama.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carl Brad Ward v. State of Alabama., 89 So. 3d 729, 2011 WL 3241496, 2011 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 54 (Ala. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

On Remand from the Alabama Supreme Court

KELLUM, Judge.

The appellant, Carl Brad Ward, appealed from the circuit court’s denial of his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., in which he challenged his 1991 conviction for murder and the resulting sentence of life imprisonment. Specifically, Ward alleged that newly discovered material facts — reports of forensic tests that excluded him as a person who had handled a cigarette butt that had been used at trial to link him to [730]*730the crime scene — required that his conviction be vacated. This Court affirmed, by unpublished memorandum, the circuit court’s judgment denying Ward’s petition for postconviction relief on the basis that Ward failed to meet several of the criteria under Rule 82.1(e), Ala. R.Crim. P., to warrant relief on a claim of newly discovered evidence and that Ward’s petition was insufficiently pleaded. See Ward v. State, 57 So.3d 210 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) (table).

Ward petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for certiorari review, arguing, among other things, that he had met his burden of pleading newly discovered material facts, and thus, that he was entitled an opportunity to present evidence in order to satisfy his burden of proof. The Supreme Court granted certiorari review, and on June 8, 2011, reversed this Court’s judgment, holding that Ward had sufficiently pleaded a claim of newly discovered material facts and that he was entitled to an opportunity to prove his allegations in light of the newly discovered forensic test results on the cigarette butt found at the crime scene. Ex parte Ward, 89 So.3d 720, 721-29 (Ala.2011).

In accordance with the Supreme Court’s opinion, we remand this case to the circuit court for that court to conduct an eviden-tiary hearing on Ward’s allegation of newly discovered evidence. In lieu of an eviden-tiary hearing, the circuit court may take evidence by affidavits, written interrogatories, or depositions, as provided in Rule 32.9, Ala. R.Crim. P. After receiving and considering the evidence presented, the circuit court shall issue specific written findings of fact regarding Ward’s claim in accordance with Rule 32.9(d), Ala. R.Crim. P.

The circuit court shall take all necessary action to see that the circuit clerk makes due return to this Court at the earliest possible time and within 56 days of the release of this opinion. The return to remand shall include a transcript of the remand proceedings conducted by the circuit court, together with the circuit court’s written findings of fact.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

On Remand from the Alabama Supreme Court

KELLUM, Judge.

The appellant, Carl Brad Ward, appealed from the circuit court’s denial of his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., in which he challenged his 1991 conviction for murder and the resulting sentence of life imprisonment. Specifically, Ward alleged that newly discovered material facts — reports of forensic tests that excluded him as a person who had handled a cigarette butt that had been used at trial to link him to [730]*730the crime scene — required that his conviction be vacated. This Court affirmed, by unpublished memorandum, the circuit court’s judgment denying Ward’s petition for postconviction relief on the basis that Ward failed to meet several of the criteria under Rule 82.1(e), Ala. R.Crim. P., to warrant relief on a claim of newly discovered evidence and that Ward’s petition was insufficiently pleaded. See Ward v. State, 57 So.3d 210 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) (table).

Ward petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for certiorari review, arguing, among other things, that he had met his burden of pleading newly discovered material facts, and thus, that he was entitled an opportunity to present evidence in order to satisfy his burden of proof. The Supreme Court granted certiorari review, and on June 8, 2011, reversed this Court’s judgment, holding that Ward had sufficiently pleaded a claim of newly discovered material facts and that he was entitled to an opportunity to prove his allegations in light of the newly discovered forensic test results on the cigarette butt found at the crime scene. Ex parte Ward, 89 So.3d 720, 721-29 (Ala.2011).

In accordance with the Supreme Court’s opinion, we remand this case to the circuit court for that court to conduct an eviden-tiary hearing on Ward’s allegation of newly discovered evidence. In lieu of an eviden-tiary hearing, the circuit court may take evidence by affidavits, written interrogatories, or depositions, as provided in Rule 32.9, Ala. R.Crim. P. After receiving and considering the evidence presented, the circuit court shall issue specific written findings of fact regarding Ward’s claim in accordance with Rule 32.9(d), Ala. R.Crim. P.

The circuit court shall take all necessary action to see that the circuit clerk makes due return to this Court at the earliest possible time and within 56 days of the release of this opinion. The return to remand shall include a transcript of the remand proceedings conducted by the circuit court, together with the circuit court’s written findings of fact.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 So. 3d 729, 2011 WL 3241496, 2011 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carl-brad-ward-v-state-of-alabama-alacrimapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack