Beckworth v. State, 190 So. 3d 571

Beckworth, appealing a death sentence for capital murder during a burglary, sought postconviction relief under Rule 32.1(a) based on Brady material not disclosed by the State.
The trial involved Beckworth and his half-brother Walker; Thweatt, an 87-year-old widow, was assaulted during a burglary and died.
Beckworth admitted to breaking in to steal; he claimed Walker beat and shot Thweatt.
Walker later told a cellmate that he shot Thweatt; Byrd testified about Walker’s statement at Walker’s trial.
The State argued Brady claim was procedurally barred by Rule 32.2(a)(3) and (5) and that Beckworth failed to plead facts negating preclusion defenses; Beckworth’s petition was summarily dismissed.
The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed summary dismissal; this Court granted certiorari to address pleading burdens related to preclusion defenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must Rule 32.1(a) claims plead facts negating Rule 32.2 preclusion defenses?	Beckworth argues pleading must show grounds to avoid preclusion.	State argues preclusion defenses must be pleaded and proven.	No; petitioner need not plead negation of preclusion to state a claim.
Who bears the burden to plead or disprove preclusion under Rule 32.3?	Beckworth contends State bears burden to plead preclusion, and petitioner need not negate it in pleading.	State bears burden to plead preclusion; petitioner must later disprove it.	State bears initial burden; petitioner must disprove preclusion if pleaded.
Does Rule 32.1(a) relief survive summary dismissal when preclusion defenses are raised?	Beckworth contends summary dismissal was improper without opportunity to show preclusion did not apply.	State asserts preclusion bars the claim; petition should be dismissed.	Summary dismissal reversed; remand for proceedings consistent with Rule 32.1(a).
Is preclusion an affirmative defense, waivable by the State, that does not affect facial sufficiency of a Rule 32.1(a) claim?	Beckworth argues preclusion can be waived and does not render facial claim insufficient.	Preclusion is an affirmative defense the State may raise.	Preclusion is waivable by the State; petition’s facial viability not controlled by preclusion unless raised.

Ex parte Pierce, 851 So.2d 606 (Ala. 2000) (distinguishes Rule 32.1(a) vs Rule 32.1(e) and preclusion applicability)
Ex parte Hodges, 147 So.3d 973 (Ala. 2011) (preclusion defense may warrant an evidentiary hearing; pleading vs proof distinction clarified)
Ex parte Lucas, 865 So.2d 418 (Ala. 2002) (rule that failure to plead preclusion is not fatal to facial validity of claim)
Ex parte Clemons, 55 So.3d 348 (Ala. 2007) (state may waive preclusion defenses; timing of waivers discussed)
Ex parte James, 61 So.3d 352 (Ala. 2009) (preclusion is an affirmative defense to be pleaded by the State)
Ford v. State, 831 So.2d 641 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001) (pleading vs proof; petitioner entitled to evidence after meeting pleading threshold)
Johnson v. State, 835 So.2d 1077 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001) (distinguishes pleading vs proof on Rule 32 pleadings)