Hawk v. State
171 So. 3d 96
Ala. Crim. App.2014Background
- Hawk appeals a circuit court denial of his Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief challenging three 2012 guilty pleas to unlawful possession of controlled substances and life sentences as a habitual offender.
- Hawk did not appeal his convictions directly; he filed the Rule 32 petition on May 14, 2013 asserting jurisdictional, Fourth Amendment, voluntariness, and ineffective-assistance grounds.
- The State answered and moved to dismiss, attaching the plea agreement, an Explanation of Rights form signed by Hawk and counsel, and the guilty-plea transcript.
- The circuit court denied the petition on October 24, 2013, concluding the claims were either insufficiently pleaded or meritless.
- On appeal, Hawk contends the plea was involuntary for not being informed of the Drug Demand Reduction Assessment Act and his right to appeal, and argues for an evidentiary hearing on ineffective-assistance claims.
- The appellate court affirmed in part and remanded for sentencing to impose mandatory fines under the Drug Demand Reduction Assessment Act and the Alabama Forensic Services Trust Fund.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of plea due to fines | Hawk argues plea involuntary for not being informed of Drug Demand Reduction Assessment Act fines. | State contends agreement and colloquy show awareness and waiver of rights; Carter distinguishable. | Plea valid; no involuntariness based on fines. |
| Ineffective assistance and need for evidentiary hearing | Hawk asserts trial counsel was ineffective and an evidentiary hearing was needed because of lack of affidavits and judge switching. | State asserts petitions were insufficiently pleaded; no factual basis shown for prejudice. | No error; no evidentiary hearing required due to lack of pleaded prejudice. |
| Rule 32 pleading adequacy | Hawk claims grounds for relief were stated. | State argues grounds are insufficiently pleaded and meritless. | Court accorded proper discretion; petition properly denied. |
| Remand for imposition of mandatory fines | Hawk argues fines mandated by statute were not imposed. | State concedes fines were not imposed; mandatory and non-waivable. | Remand for circuit court to impose mandatory fines under §§ 13A-12-281 and 36-18-7(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. State, 812 So.2d 391 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) (inaction of informing defendant of fines can render plea involuntary)
- Stephenson v. State, 469 So.2d 1355 (Ala.Crim.App.1985) (plea colloquy plus plea agreement and rights form show awareness of sentence terms)
- Magwood v. State, 689 So.2d 959 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) (counsel not ineffective for futile actions)
- Grady v. State, 831 So.2d 646 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) (standard for affirming without an evidentiary hearing when petition insufficient)
- Siercks v. State, 154 So.3d 1085 (Ala.Crim.App.2013) (mandatory fines are jurisdictional; failure to impose requires remand)
- Hunt v. State, 659 So.2d 998 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (unauthorized sentences are jurisdictional; court may take notice)
- Pender v. State, 740 So.2d 482 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (examples of reviewing illegal sentences and postconviction remedies)