Patrick v. State
2011 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 20
Ala. Crim. App.2011Background
- Patrick was convicted in 2004 of sodomy in the first degree and sentenced to 30 years; his prior direct appeal was affirmed in an unpublished memorandum.
- In 2009 Patrick filed a Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance and claiming untimeliness was due to excusable neglect caused by his appellate counsel Pennington.
- Patrick acknowledged the petition was untimely under Rule 32.2(c) but contends extraordinary circumstances justify equitable tolling.
- Patrick alleged Pennington promised to file timely Rule 32 petition and to provide a copy thereafter, but no petition was filed and no copy was sent.
- The circuit court granted a time enlargement but later found the petition time-barred; on remand, it stated equity tolling did not apply, though the record was cleared of evidentiary material and consisted of pleadings.
- The majority reversed, held equitable tolling applies under Ex parte Ward, and remanded for proceedings consistent with that framework; the dissent would require a hearing to prove facts before tolling could be recognized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable tolling applies to Rule 32.2(c) timing. | Patrick argues extraordinary circumstances justify tolling. | State argues timeliness governs; no tolling. | Equitable tolling applicable; petition timely due to extraordinary circumstances. |
| Whether the circuit court properly remanded/remedied its tolling determination. | Patrick relies on Ward guidance; improper to deny tolling without a hearing. | State contends no tolling should be granted without evidentiary showing. | Remanded for proceedings consistent with Ward to determine tolling merits. |
| What is the proper burden of proof for tolling when a petition is facially time-barred? | Patrick bears burden to show extraordinary circumstances. | State need not prove tolling; petitioner must prove entitlement. | Petitioner bears burden to show extraordinary circumstances justify tolling. |
| Is the petition sufficient on its face to permit tolling analysis under Rule 32.7(d)? | Petition itself demonstrates extraordinary circumstances. | No tolling without evidentiary support. | Petition sufficiently asserted tolling claim to warrant further consideration. |
| Should the case be remanded for an evidentiary proceeding on tolling? | Evidence could prove Pennington’s deceit caused untimeliness. | Record lacks evidentiary material; hearing may be unnecessary. | Remanded to permit an evidentiary development on tolling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Ward, 46 So.3d 888 (Ala. 2007) (test for equitable tolling in Rule 32 cases; extraordinary circumstances apply)
- Ex parte Ward (clarification paragraph), 46 So.3d 896-898 (Ala. 2007) (explanation of tolling standard and burden; summary dismissal rule is available)
- Martinez v. State, 75 So.3d 622 (Ala.Crim.App. 2010) (directs hearing to prove tolling entitlement)
- Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 798 (3d Cir. 2003) (burden on petitioner to show extraordinary circumstances apply)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (right to equitable tolling in federal habeas context guidance)