Fidel Martinez v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 04/30/2010 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 b e 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-06-0020 Fidel Martinez v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from D a l e C i r c u i t (CC-02-392.60) On Remand f r o m WELCH, In So. 3d Court t h e A l a b a m a Supreme Court Judge. Ex p a r t e Martinez, [Ms. 1 0 6 1 2 3 7 , May 2 9 , 2 0 0 9 ] ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t judgment o f t h i s Court and remanded t h e case reversed the f o r t h i s Court t o CR-06-0020 review Martinez's Crim. P., entitled tolling was a p p e a l o f t h e d e n i a l o f h i s R u l e 3 2 , A l a . R. petition and to determine t o t h e remedy a f f o r d e d whether Martinez by t h e d o c t r i n e of was equitable a n d , i f he w a s , t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e c i r c u i t correct t o deny M a r t i n e z Initially, Alabama this Supreme when t h a t Court Court's Court court relief. was not remand entirely sure what d i r e c t i o n s i n Martinez the meant stated: "'[W]e r e v e r s e t h e judgment o f t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l Appeals and remand t h e case to that court f o r consideration of Martinez's claim that he is e n t i t l e d t o t h e remedy a f f o r d e d by t h e d o c t r i n e o f e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g and, i f i t d e c i d e s t h a t he i s , whether the t r i a l court was correct i n denying Martinez's petition.'" "'Martinez, So. 3d Supreme C o u r t i n t e n d e d regarding the Martinez's limitation Supreme pare . We questioned [Ms. entitlement i n Rule 1070397, 2010)("Ward whether the f o r t h i s C o u r t t o make f i n d i n g s o f f a c t to the equitable 32. However, s i n c e C o u r t ' s remand, t h a t C o u r t r e l e a s e d Ward, (Ala. period at V"). 1 February The facts 19, tolling the Alabama i t s opinion 2010] i n Ward So. are of i n Ex 3d similar to Ward v. State, 814 So. 2d 899 ( A l a . Crim. App. 2 0 0 0 ) ( " W a r d I " ) ( a f f i r m i n g on d i r e c t a p p e a l ) ; Ward v. S t a t e , ( C R - 0 5 - 0 6 5 5 ) , 988 S o . 2 d 1078 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) ( t a b l e ) ("Ward I I " ) ( a f f i r m i n g t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f Ward's 1 2 CR-06-0020 those presented i n Martinez. distinctions stated between i n Ward V The S u p r e m e C o u r t the cases. The Alabama d i d not note Supreme Court that, "the d i s p o s i t i v e issue before [ t h e Supreme C o u r t was] w h e t h e r t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s c o r r e c t l y held that the d o c t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g i s not a v a i l a b l e t o 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 b y p r e v i o u s c o u n s e l 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 matter of f i r s t impression the a v a i l a b i l i t y of e q u i t a b l e 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 . " W a r d V, U.S. So. 3d a t 314 , 328 found that (1 9 8 7 ) , "'a prosecutions . Quoting G r i f f i t h the Alabama new rule i s t o be for applied the that "Ward should doctrine of equitable Alabama Supreme C o u r t ' s of Martinez, supra. have Court conduct retroactively s t a t e o r f e d e r a l , p e n d i n g on d i r e c t thus, Supreme v. Kentucky, i n Ward of to a l l cases, review or not yet f i n a l , ' " tolling." So. 3d at continued with In M a r t i n e z , V criminal the opportunity to assert analysis 479 as set forth a . the The discussion above, the N o v e m b e r 2, 2 0 0 5 , R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n ) ; E x p a r t e W a r d , [Ms. 1051818, June 1 , 2007] So. 3d ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) ("Ward III")(reviewing denial o f Ward's Rule 32 petition and remanding the case to this Court); Ward v. S t a t e (No. CR-05-0655, A u g u s t 17, 2 0 0 7 ) , So. 3d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 7 ) ( t a b l e ) ( " W a r d I V " ) ( a f f i r m i n g d e n i a l o f W a r d ' s N o v e m b e r 2, 2 0 0 5 , R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n ) . 3 CR-06-0020 Supreme Court findings. W a r d was equitable Court remanded Martinez entitled was to the t o l l i n g i n the the case cited as to this Court precedent opportunity for for further holding to a s s e r t the d o c t r i n e c i r c u i t court. The Alabama of Supreme stated: "In Ex p a r t e M a r t i n e z , [Ms. 1 0 6 1 2 3 7 , May 2 9 , 2 0 0 9 ] So. 3d ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) , we h e l d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t w h o s e p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i was pending when we d e c i d e d [Ex p a r t e W a r d , [Ms. 1 0 5 1 8 1 8 , J u n e 1, 2 0 0 7 ] So. 3d (Ala. 2007)(Ward I I I ) , ] was e n t i t l e d to a s s e r t the d o c t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g as i t r e l a t e d t o h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . We stated: "'While Martinez's c e r t i o r a r i p e t i t i o n was p e n d i n g , t h i s C o u r t i s s u e d i t s o p i n i o n i n [Ward I I I ] . M a r t i n e z d i d n o t h a v e t h e b e n e f i t of Ward [ I I I ] t o a f f o r d him the o p p o r t u n i t y to argue the e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g o f t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d . A c c o r d i n g l y , we reverse the judgment of the Court of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s and remand the c a s e to t h a t c o u r t f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of M a r t i n e z ' s c l a i m t h a t he i s e n t i t l e d t o t h e remedy afforded by the doctrine of equitable tolling and, i f i t decides t h a t he i s , whether the trial court was correct in denying Martinez's petition.' "Martinez, So. 3d a t . A review of our summary i n M a r t i n e z o f t h e c l a i m s M a r t i n e z a r g u e d i n h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n r e f l e c t s t h a t t h e o n l y c l a i m t h a t c o u l d a r g u a b l y be s a i d t o a s s e r t t h e d o c t r i n e of equitable tolling was a claim that the l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d of Rule 32.2(c) s h o u l d not apply in h i s case ' b e c a u s e , he says, as a native of G u a t e m a l a who does not s p e a k E n g l i s h , he faced significant obstacles i n pursuing postconviction 4 that CR-06-0020 r e v ii e^w vv ' .. S^ ow.. 3d aa tu V _ _ ^ . ¢ i--La.-i-U-i-ii^^ vvg-o ^ i i u - L U - i - ^ w . to a s s e r t the newly recognized d o c t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e tolling on r e m a n d ; l i k e w i s e , W a r d i s e n t i t l e d t o a s s e r t t h e d o c t r i n e , w h i c h was a d o p t e d i n h i s c a s e . " -1- ^ Ward V, So. Therefore, Ward V 3d at (Emphasis because that recognized 3d a t t h e Supreme "Martinez doctrine was , and because, l i k e i n Rule equitable circuit and court court's this case of the l i m i t a t i o n s period whether of a f f i d a v i t s , should be 2 i n Rule 32. in newly So. entitled the l i m i t a t i o n s we m u s t r e v e r s e Rule proceedings. he i s e n t i t l e d written consideration court III, Martinez c o n d u c t an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , circuit the on r e m a n d , " rule" regarding for further the merits upon assert judgment denying Martinez's on If, tolling a n n o u n c e d i n Ward i s directed to provide form to stated 32, i . e . , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e d o c t r i n e tolling remand clearly Ward, M a r t i n e z t o t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f t h e "new period Court entitled of equitable added.) 32 the petition The an o p p o r t u n i t y circuit to prove t o an e q u i t a b l e The c i r c u i t of tolling court may o r i t may t a k e e v i d e n c e i n t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , or of the equitable determines that Martinez tolling depositions. issue, the i s e n t i t l e d t o have h i s We r e c o g n i z e , a s d i d t h e A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t , t h a t W a r d was t h e p e t i t i o n e r who f i r s t argued that the doctrine of e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g s h o u l d be a d o p t e d i n R u l e 32 p r o c e e d i n g s . 2 5 CR-06-0020 out-of-time Rule should address as though The 32 t o remand findings hearing, i fthere made court to shall of fact; a include i s one; and any o t h e r opinion. addressed The remand 63 of at the appropriate REMANDED WITH Wise, within necessity the c i r c u i t transcript i n making i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n . this the c i r c u i t court petition filed. written the accepted, a l l the claims contained i nMartinez's timely return petition days court's of the evidentiary evidence r e l i e d on b y A due r e t u r n s h a l l be of additional the date of briefing will this be time. DIRECTIONS. P . J . , a n d Windom, Kellum, 6 and Main, JJ., concur.

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.