Lack of Jurisdiction in Rule 32 Petitions

Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure is the rule under which postconviction relief may be sought in Alabama. However, petitioners generally must get everything right in the first petition because successive petitions are subject to certain limitations:

“A successive petition on different grounds shall be denied unless (1) the petitioner is entitled to relief on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to render a judgment or to impose sentence or (2) the petitioner shows both that good cause exists why the new ground or grounds were not known or could not have been ascertained through reasonable diligence when the first petition was heard, and that failure to entertain the petition will result in a miscarriage of justice.” [1]

The second exception, newly discovered evidence, is well understood. But what does this mean?

Subject matter jurisdiction is generally defined as a court’s constitutional or statutory power to adjudicate a case. [2] Subject matter jurisdiction is the kind of thing that cannot be waived in law. [3] Accordingly, it is an error that can be raised at any time.

The Alabama Supreme Court has held that a court’s subject matter jurisdiction comes from a valid indictment. [4] However, a defect in the indictment does not deprive a court of subject matter jurisdiction. [5] Subject matter jurisdiction further lies with the court itself and not a specific judge. [6] In a non-Rule 32 context, it has been held that a judge lacked jurisdiction to rule on a motion because the judge was not the sentencing judge, the trial judge, or a presiding judge in the circuit. [7] However, that case involved a statutory basis for appointment. Trying and convicting a petitioner who was incompetent at the time of trial is jurisdictional and cannot be waived. [8] However, procedural shortcomings in determining competency are not jurisdictional in nature. [9] Rather, the petitioner would have to present competent, substantial evidence that he or she was tried and convicted while incompetent. [10]

Stated simply, overcoming the procedural bar in a successive Rule 32 petition is a significant challenge. If you or someone you love is in need of representation for a successive Rule 32 petition, contact Peter Armstrong, Attorney at Law, for a free consultation.

Citations:

1.    Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b).

2.    U.S. v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002) (quotation omitted).

3.    Id.

4.    Ash v. State, 843 So. 2d 213, 216 (Ala. 2002).

5.    Ex parte Seymour, 946 So. 2d 536, 539 (Ala. 2006).

6.    Files v. State, 413 So. 3d 679, 683 (Ala. 2024).

7.    Bush v. State, 171 So. 3d 679, 680 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014).

8.    P.R.M. v. State, 286 So. 3d 72, 74 (Ala. Crim. App. 2019).

Nicks v. State, 783 So. 2d 895 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999).