My Rule 32 was denied without a hearing! What do I do now?

After putting all so much work into the petition, going to the law library, and consulting with all the other prisoners, the court still denied your Rule 32 petition for relief without a hearing. This is a moment of heartbreak and disappointment. All the hope and hard work seems like it was for nothing.

But it isn’t over yet.

Summary disposition is appropriate only where a court

“determines that the petition is not sufficiently specific, or is precluded, or fails to state a claim, or that no material issue of fact or law exists which would entitle the petitioner to relief under this rule and that no purpose would be served by any further proceedings.” [1]

Distilled, this means that a Rule 32 may be dismissed where a claim is (1) not specific, (2) precluded, (3) fails to state a claim, or (4) no material issue of law or fact is present which could obtain relief. Let’s explore each of these.

Lack of specificity is regularly claimed by the State in response. When is a claim sufficiently specific? Ironically, the law does not give a specific answer. However, to be fair, specificity depends on the claim. The rule requires full disclosure of the factual basis for any claim. [2] Bare allegations of a constitutional violation or conclusion of law are not enough. [3] What this means is that it is not enough to simply allege “My attorney did not call any witnesses.” The full details of the claim must be explored in great detail and applied to the facts of the case. How and why was counsel deficient? How and why did counsel’s deficient performance result in prejudice? These questions must be answered in detail within the four corners of the Rule 32 petition. [4] It is not simply alleging a conclusion which, if true, entitled a petitioner to relief; rather, it is the allegation of facts which, if true, would entitle a petitioner to relief. [5]

Issue preclusion is a potential problem. The rule sets forth five scenarios where a petitioner will not be given relief:

(1) Which may still be raised on direct appeal under the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure or by posttrial motion under Rule 24; or

(2) Which was raised or addressed at trial; or

(3) Which could have been but was not raised at trial, unless the ground for relief arises under Rule 32.1(b); or

(4) Which was raised or addressed on appeal or in any previous collateral proceeding not dismissed pursuant to the last sentence of Rule 32.1 as a petition that challenges multiple judgments, whether or not the previous collateral proceeding was adjudicated on the merits of the grounds raised; or

(5) Which could have been but was not raised on appeal, unless the ground for relief arises under Rule 32.1(b). [6]

The rule further precludes relief for successive petitions, out-of-time petitions, or ineffective assistance of counsel claims that are not brought in the initial petition. [7] The first item of the rule means that direct appeal claims of trial court error cannot be brought on Rule 32. For example, if you raised an issue on direct appeal that the prosecution failed to turn over exculpatory evidence, the claim cannot be brought again on a Rule 32 petition. [8] The “could have been raised and addressed at trial” preclusion also generally applies to claims of trial court error. [9] Grounds that could have been raised on direct appeal or actually were raised on direct appeal cannot be brought in a Rule 32 petition.

The third and fourth provisions have a bit of overlap because they essentially ask whether an issue states a claim in law and facts. Thankfully, case law does provide a specific description of what constitutes a meritorious claim:

“A postconviction claim is ‘meritorious on its face’ only if the claim (1) is sufficiently pleaded in accordance with Rule 32.3 and Rule 32.6(b); (2) is not precluded by one of the provisions in Rule 32.2; and (3) contains factual allegations that, if true, would entitle the petitioner to relief.” [10]

In other words, the claim must be sufficiently pled and not precluded as described above. The claim must also have factual allegations which, if true, satisfy a basis in law and fact to entitle the petitioner to relief.

Thus, if a Rule 32 petition is specific, not precluded, and states a meritorious claim, the petitioner should be entitled to an evidentiary hearing and opportunity to present evidence to meet his or her burden of proof. [11] If the petitioner was improperly denied, the appellate court should reverse the denial and remand the case back to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. [12]

Obviously, this process gets complicated fast. If you or someone you love needs help seeking postconviction relief or appealing, contact Peter Armstrong, Attorney at Law, for a free consultation.

References:

1.    Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.7(d). (https://judicial.alabama.gov/docs/library/rules/cr32_7.pdf)

2.    Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.6(b). (https://judicial.alabama.gov/docs/library/rules/cr32_6.pdf)

3.    Id.

4.    Boyd v. State, 746 So. 2d 364, 406 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). (https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/boyd-v-state-887063089)

5.    Hyde v. State, 950 So. 2d 344, 356 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006). (https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/591471b9add7b04934372647)

6.    Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(a). (https://judicial.alabama.gov/docs/library/rules/cr32_2.pdf)

7.    Id. at 32.2(b)-(d).

8.    Davis v. State, 44 So. 3d 1118, 1143 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009). (https://www.leagle.com/decision/inalco20090807001)

9.    See, e.g., Windsor v. State, 89 So. 3d 805, 825 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009) (holding claim that the prosecution relied on constitutionally unreliable evidence barred because it was raised and addressed at trial). (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5058903/harvey-l-windsor-v-state-of-alabama/)

10. Kuenzel v. State, 204 So. 3d 910, 914 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015) (citing Ex parte Boatwright, 471 So. 2d 1257, 1258 (Ala. 1985)). (https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914addfadd7b04934744b09)

11. Ex parte Coleman, 71 So. 3d 627, 631 (Ala. 2010). (https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/coleman-v-state-1090975-885431675)

12. Id. at 633.