172 So. 3d 860
Ala. Crim. App.2015Background
- Baker pleaded guilty in 2010 to one count of sexual abuse of a child under 12 and received a 10-year sentence; probation was denied and no direct appeal was filed.
- Baker filed several pro se motions seeking reconsideration or modification of his sentence, which the circuit court denied.
- In 2011 Baker, with counsel, filed a Rule 32 petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and involuntary plea; the circuit court denied, and an unpublished memorandum affirmed on appeal in 2012.
- In 2013 Baker filed a new motion challenging his plea; the State treated it as a Rule 32 petition and sought form-compliance and indigency procedures; the circuit court returned the filing to Baker and appointed counsel to assist.
- Baker filed a corrected Rule 32 petition in 2014, followed by an amended petition in March 2014; the circuit court held an evidentiary hearing in May 2014 and granted relief on the merits, finding ineffective assistance and invalidity of the plea, and applied equitable tolling to overlook Rule 32.2(c) time limits.
- The State appealed; the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the preclusion provisions of Rule 32.2(b) barred Baker’s successive claims unless properly disproved, and Baker failed to prove the grounds by a preponderance of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 32.2(b) precludes Baker’s second petition | Baker argues grounds are new; not previously decided | State contends claims are the same or similar and precluded | Precluded under Rule 32.2(b) as successive and not proven on merits |
| Whether equitable tolling can defeat Rule 32.2(c) time bar | Baker seeks equitable tolling to avoid time bar | Equitable tolling does not overcome 32.2(b) for successive petitions | Equitable tolling does not override Rule 32.2(b) preclusion for successive petitions |
| Whether the circuit court erred in addressing preclusion sua sponte | Baker contends court should consider merits despite preclusion | State properly pleaded preclusion and bears burden | Circuit court erred in not applying properly asserted Rule 32.2(b) preclusion; relief reversed |
| Whether the State properly pleaded and Baker disproved preclusion | Baker argues preclusion not proven | State proved Baker’s petition was successive; Baker failed to disprove | State’s Rule 32.2(b) preclusion proven; Baker failed to disprove by preponderance |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Clemons, 55 So.3d 348 (Ala. 2007) (nonjurisdictional nature of Rule 32.2 preclusion and waiver by State)
- Ex parte Ward, 46 So.3d 888 (Ala. 2007) (equitable tolling as to Rule 32.2(c) limits, not to Rule 32.2(b))
- Ex parte Walker, 800 So.2d 135 (Ala. 2000) (claims under Rule 32.2(b) considered separately by prong)
- Wallace v. State, 959 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) (nonjurisdictional nature of involuntary-plea claim under Rule 32)
- Patrick v. State, 91 So.3d 756 (Ala.Crim.App.2011) (equitable tolling discussed in context of Rule 32)
- Ex parte Rice, 565 So.2d 606 (Ala. 1990) (adequate notice required for preclusion grounds)
- A.G. v. State, 989 So.2d 1167 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (two-part Rule 32.2(b) analysis and preclusion interpretation)