105 So. 3d 460
Ala. Crim. App.2012Background
- Acra pleaded guilty in 2009 to CNA registration violation; no direct appeal.
- 2010 Adams decision held CNA statute unconstitutional as applied to indigent homeless offenders.
- May 2011 Acra filed Rule 32 petition alleging lack of constitutionality and related grounds.
- Circuit court summarily dismissed, State argued preclusion, timeliness, pleading sufficiency, and lack of merit.
- This Court held Acra asserted a Rule 32.1(a) constitutional claim, retroactivity of Adams, and entitlement to an evidentiary hearing; reversed and remanded for hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Adams retroactively applies on collateral review | Acra contends Adams is retroactive under Teague exceptions. | State argues Adams is not retroactive and preclusion applies. | Adams is retroactive; grounds for relief not precluded. |
| Whether Acra's claim falls under Rule 32.1(a) as a constitutional challenge | Acra argues the conviction/sentence unconstitutional under due process/equal protection and cruel punishment. | State urges preclusion/other Rule 32.2 grounds, not a constitutional claim under 32.1(a). | Acra's claim falls under Rule 32.1(a) and is cognizable. |
| Whether Acra is entitled to an evidentiary hearing | Acra pleaded facts mirroring Adams showing homelessness/indigence preventing address; facts entitle relief if true. | State argues pleading is insufficient to entitle hearing. | Yes; pleaded facts, if true, would entitle relief; hearing required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. State, 91 So.3d 724 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (CNA unconstitutional as applied to indigent homeless offender; retroactivity discussed)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (establishes Teague retroactivity framework)
- Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406 (U.S. 2007) (defines retroactivity framework for collateral review)
- Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484 (U.S. 1990) (new-rule retroactivity exceptions)
- Bush v. State, 92 So.3d 121 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) (new-rule retroactivity requires substantive or watershed effect)
- Ferguson v. State, 13 So.3d 418 (Ala.Crim.App.2008) (recognizes Teague framework for Alabama postconviction claims)
- Ex parte Hodges, So.3d (Ala.2011) (pleading standards for Rule 32 petitions (addressed in Hodges context))
- Duncan v. State, 925 So.2d 245 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (retroactivity/Rule 32 considerations in Alabama appellate analysis)