Shephard v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Shephard v. State

587 So. 2d 1105, 1991 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1397, 1991 WL 200744

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedSeptember 20, 1991

DocketCR-90-966

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 587 So. 2d 1105 (Shephard v. State) 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

Shephard v. State, 587 So. 2d 1105, 1991 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1397, 1991 WL 200744 (Ala. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

McMILLAN, Judge.

The appellant on November 29, 1990, filed a petition pursuant to Rule 20, A.R.Cr.P.Temp., seeking an out-of-time appeal of his conviction of robbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree. In his petition, he states that he pleaded guilty to the charges and that he was sentenced to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment. Thereafter, according to the appellant, he filed a Rule 20 petition on the grounds of “20.9 and 20.1(f).” He states that this petition was denied as a successive petition by the trial court on July 17, 1990, without an evidentiary hearing.

[1106]*1106In addition, the appellant argues that he was not advised before sentencing of “Rule 11,” apparently a reference to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which does not apply in this proceeding. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to dismiss this claim. The appellant also argues that he was denied the right to a habitual offender’s hearing. However, he has failed to properly raise this issue in brief on appeal, and therefore we shall not consider it. Boutwell v. City of Bay Minette, 522 So.2d 325 (Ala.Cr.App.1988); see Rules 31(c) and 45B, A.R.A.P.

The petition filed by the appellant is a form petition on which as grounds of the petition the appellant marked only “F. The petitioner failed to appeal within the prescribed time and that failure was without fault on petitioner’s part.” The State’s answer included a specific plea that relief was precluded because the ground of the petition had been raised in a previous collateral proceeding. The State did not, however, indicate that there had been an adjudication on the merits in that proceeding. The trial court then denied the appellant’s petition as successive by Rule 20.2(b).”

In order for a petition to be successive, there must have been a prior adjudication of the issue raised in the latter petition on the merits. Kuk v. State, 580 So.2d 750 (Ala.Cr.App.1991); Blount v. State, 572 So.2d 498 (Ala.Cr.App.1990). There is no indication of such an adjudication in the present case.

Therefore, this cause must be remanded to the trial court with instructions to determine whether the previous petition was decided on its merits. If not, the trial court is instructed to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the appellant’s petition. A return should be filed with this Court within 84 days.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

All the Judges concur.

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

McMILLAN, Judge.

The appellant on November 29, 1990, filed a petition pursuant to Rule 20, A.R.Cr.P.Temp., seeking an out-of-time appeal of his conviction of robbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree. In his petition, he states that he pleaded guilty to the charges and that he was sentenced to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment. Thereafter, according to the appellant, he filed a Rule 20 petition on the grounds of “20.9 and 20.1(f).” He states that this petition was denied as a successive petition by the trial court on July 17, 1990, without an evidentiary hearing.

[1106]*1106In addition, the appellant argues that he was not advised before sentencing of “Rule 11,” apparently a reference to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which does not apply in this proceeding. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to dismiss this claim. The appellant also argues that he was denied the right to a habitual offender’s hearing. However, he has failed to properly raise this issue in brief on appeal, and therefore we shall not consider it. Boutwell v. City of Bay Minette, 522 So.2d 325 (Ala.Cr.App.1988); see Rules 31(c) and 45B, A.R.A.P.

The petition filed by the appellant is a form petition on which as grounds of the petition the appellant marked only “F. The petitioner failed to appeal within the prescribed time and that failure was without fault on petitioner’s part.” The State’s answer included a specific plea that relief was precluded because the ground of the petition had been raised in a previous collateral proceeding. The State did not, however, indicate that there had been an adjudication on the merits in that proceeding. The trial court then denied the appellant’s petition as successive by Rule 20.2(b).”

In order for a petition to be successive, there must have been a prior adjudication of the issue raised in the latter petition on the merits. Kuk v. State, 580 So.2d 750 (Ala.Cr.App.1991); Blount v. State, 572 So.2d 498 (Ala.Cr.App.1990). There is no indication of such an adjudication in the present case.

Therefore, this cause must be remanded to the trial court with instructions to determine whether the previous petition was decided on its merits. If not, the trial court is instructed to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the appellant’s petition. A return should be filed with this Court within 84 days.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

587 So. 2d 1105, 1991 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1397, 1991 WL 200744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shephard-v-state-alacrimapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack