John Michael Ward v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 10/01/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 CR-05-0655 John M i c h a e l Ward v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from B a l d w i n C i r c u i t C o u r t (CC-97-799.60) On Remand f r o m WELCH, t h e A l a b a m a Supreme Court Judge. John M i c h a e l W a r d was c o n v i c t e d death of h i s four-month-old Code 1975, and conviction was of capital murder i n t h e son, see § 13A-5-40(a)(15), A l a . sentenced to death and d e a t h s e n t e n c e were a f f i r m e d i n 1998. Ward's on d i r e c t appeal. CR-05-0655 Ward v. I"). State, Ward filed postconviction for filing summarily was 814 So. a Rule relief h i s Rule dismissed on N o v e m b e r 988 II"). the period Court Crim. P., 2, 2 0 0 5 . 2d The 1078 The A l a b a m a petition for the t r i a l summary dismissal State App. Court granted to consider whether A l a . R. Crim. and, i f i t i s not j u r i s d i c t i o n a l , should adopt the d o c t r i n e court Ward v . Supreme 32.2(c), the time ( A l a . Crim. of c e r t i o r a r i i n Rule 2000)("Ward Because had e x p i r e d , petition. So. for a writ jurisdictional App. C o u r t w i t h o u t an o p i n i o n . Ward's p e t i t i o n limitations ( A l a . Crim. 3 2 , A l a . R. Ward's CR-05-0655), 2006)(table)("Ward 899 32 p e t i t i o n a f f i r m e d by t h i s (No. 2d of e q u i t a b l e P., i s whether the tolling to allow for the suspension of the running of the l i m i t a t i o n s period i n Rule 32.2(c) i n c e r t a i n limitations tolling period instances. i s not j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i s available i n extraordinary beyond the p e t i t i o n e r ' s control with the e x e r c i s e of d i l i g e n c e . " June 1 , 2007] That Court So. 3d held and t h a t Rule 32.2(c), 2 that are and t h a t a r e u n a v o i d a b l e Ex p a r t e , A l a . R.Crim. "equitable circumstances Ward, [Ms. P., creates a even 1051818, ( A l a . 2007 ) ( " W a r d The C o u r t a l s o c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h i s C o u r t h a d " e r r e d that that the III"). i n holding jurisdictional CR-05-0655 bar that precludes tolling," and judgment and consistent On again remanded remand affirmed, doctrine he petition. 3d from 196 the not tolling ( A l a . Crim. and on of the equitable this Court's proceedings . Supreme Court, the t r i a l was of further I d . at asserted Ward v. S t a t e Court's judgment, for i n the unpublished equitable certiorari, cause an o p i n i o n , this court's memorandum not available doctrine Court summary that the to Ward i n h i s Rule 32 (No. C R - 0 5 - 0 6 5 5 , A u g u s t 1 7 , 2 0 0 7 ) , App. A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t a g a i n of portion the Alabama without had of the doctrine that the opinion. holding of because So. i t reversed with dismissal, application 2007)(table)("Ward g r a n t e d Ward's p e t i t i o n February holding, 19, 2010, i n relevant IV"). The for a writ i t reversed part: "The d i s p o s i t i v e i s s u e b e f o r e u s i s w h e t h e r t h e Court of Criminal Appeals c o r r e c t l y held that the d o c t r i n e of equitable t o l l i n g i s not a v a i l a b l e to W a r d b e c a u s e he f a i l e d t o a s s e r t i t i n t h e R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n f i l e d by p r e v i o u s counsel on N o v e m b e r 2, 2 0 0 5 , b e f o r e we r e l e a s e d o u r o p i n i o n i n W a r d I I I on J u n e 1, 2 0 0 7 , i n w h i c h we r e c o g n i z e d a s a m a t t e r o f first impression the a v a i l a b i l i t y of equitable t o l l i n g t o a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n e r . In l i g h t of the fact that the doctrine of equitable t o l l i n g i s a newly recognized exception to the limitations p r o v i s i o n of Rule 32.2(c), that i t was W a r d who argued successfully before this Court that the doctrine should be a d o p t e d , and t h a t this is a 3 14 this CR-05-0655 capital case, we h o l d opportunity to assert tolling." Ex parte Ward, (Ala. this j u d g m e n t i n Ward on t h e m e r i t s determination out-of-time In trial [Ms. 1 0 7 0 3 9 7 , F e b . 1 9 , 2 0 1 0 ] remand t h e case hearing as Rule light So. 3d recuses directions court , reversed that this f o r an e v i d e n t i a r y o f Ward's e q u i t a b l e - t o l l i n g c l a i m and a whether to Ward 32 p e t i t i o n . " judgment and consistent with R E V E R S E D AND Wise, to IV w i t h "to the t r i a l o f t h e Supreme court's proceedings J., have the equitable 2 0 1 0 ) ( " W a r d V " ) . The A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t Court's Court t h a t Ward s h o u l d the d o c t r i n e of i s entitled I d . at Court's an reverse the . holding, remand file this we case t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s for further opinion. REMANDED. P . J . , and K e l l u m and Main, herself. 4 J J . ,concur. Windom,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.