Kenneth Eugene Smith v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 12/17/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal 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 , Alabama 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, 2010-2011 CR-07-1412 K e n n e t h Eugene S m i t h v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal WELCH, Court Judge. Kenneth Eugene summary denial Ala. Crim. R. from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CC-89-1149.61) Smith appeals of h i s petition, P., f o r r e l i e f from filed the circuit pursuant court's t o Rule 32, f o l l o w i n g h i s c o n v i c t i o n and CR-07-1412 death sentence Sennett. We Smith April was to 7, f o r the r e v e r s e and was on by a a charge a contract was for hire. transferred tried before a jury. of capital sentence be sentence. a Smith of Elizabeth for further Colbert proceedings. County grand o f m u r d e r made c a p i t a l Smith's v. S m i t h was capital that murder. Smith possibility be and the trial v. So. 2d So. 2d 727 So. in April By 2d of to The life trial sentenced sentence were a n d he was to 1, App. death death because (1986). 1991), on App. 1 992). without v. of recommended death. Smith on return again convicted the j u r y to convicted 79 court overrode affirmed. 2 U.S. imprisonment Smith was the ( A l a . Crim. App.), 11 case appeal (Ala. Crim. The the imposed (Ala. Crim. 732 1996, a vote sentenced and pursuant the that 476 on because i t S m i t h was r e v e r s e d on 561 620 and court Kentucky, 620 jury o r was recommended was of p a r o l e . recommendation conviction and jury 1989, Batson remand, retried County, conviction 588 t o remand, second The of State, Jefferson On N o v e m b e r 3, imposed, Dorlene § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 7 ) , A l a . Code 1975. to murder. violation return to remand indicted 1988, murder done f o r p e c u n i a r y o r o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n case of capital the the jury's Smith's State, 908 CR-07-1412 So. 2d 273 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . granted certiorari certiorari review, as h a v i n g been and The A l a b a m a S u p r e m e then quashed improvidently Smith, 908 S o . 2 d 302 ( A l a . 2005). United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t . Court the writ granted. of Ex p a r t e R e v i e w was d e n i e d b y t h e Smith v. Alabama, 546 U.S. 928 (2005). On Rule March 3 2 , A l a . R. C r i m . petition and 1, P. filed Smith filed portion filed under court Smith sought seal, granted upon schedule Smith's from t h e t r i a l court, f o rthe f i l i n g seal. 1 a portion request motion f o r leave of additional consent On June of which and a f t e r The p a r t i e s court a joint to to the an amended p e t i t i o n . Smith's to the c i r c u i t pursuant an a n s w e r an amended p e t i t i o n , of t h e p e t i t i o n under submitted a petition The S t a t e f i l e d was g r a n t e d , l e a v e t o f i l e circuit a Smith on J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 0 6 . 2007, was 16, 2006, the to f i l e a subsequently order setting p l e a d i n g s a n d f o r an In t h e i r b r i e f s t o t h i s Court both p a r t i e s state that the S t a t e f i l e d an a n s w e r t o t h e amended p e t i t i o n on J u l y 2, 2007, b u t t h e b r i e f s i n c l u d e no r e c o r d c i t a t i o n t o an a n s w e r t o t h e amended p e t i t i o n . M o r e o v e r , t h e r e c o r d does n o t i n c l u d e an a n s w e r t o t h e amended p e t i t i o n , a n d t h e c a s e a c t i o n summary does n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t an a n s w e r t o t h e amended p e t i t i o n was e v e r f i l e d w i t h t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t . N e i t h e r p a r t y has f i l e d a pleading with this Court i n d i c a t i n g that the record i s i n c o m p l e t e a n d r e q u e s t i n g t h a t t h e r e c o r d be s u p p l e m e n t e d . 1 3 CR-07-1412 e v i d e n t i a r y hearing that, the p a r t i e s stated, they anticipated would signed the be held i n early 2008. The circuit c o n s e n t o r d e r on S e p t e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 7 . State filed disposition petition. dismissal of a motion for partial of of many The pleading Smith f i l e d a motion a response to that motion requested. opposing summarily relief. The Smith's motion reconsider, entered Smith amended the d i d not seek of the claims a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l p r e s e n t e d by Smith i n t h e to discovery On November the State's denying circuit Smith's court alter, a written amend, order i n the motion, o f many o f t h e d o c u m e n t s 2007, Smith for partial a dismissal. for postconviction entered Smith an filed order a orders. and i t d e n i e d t h e motion. denying motion The a d d r e s s i n g the arguments 4 filed c o u r t e n t e r e d an e x t e n s i v e or vacate both follows. and t h e i n which i t acknowledged petition also f o r discovery. f o r discovery, 16, motion On M a r c h 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e c i r c u i t order in raised summary a majority S m i t h was e n t i t l e d had claims 1, 2 0 0 7 , t h e seeking of, or otherwise mention, State f i l e d he dismissal, dismissal amended p e t i t i o n . that On O c t o b e r for partial ineffective motion the court court raised This to by appeal CR-07-1412 On sentence d i r e c t appeal from Smith's this Court summarized the second c o n v i c t i o n and evidence from trial: "The State's evidence tended to show the following. On M a r c h 18, 1 9 8 8 , t h e R e v e r e n d C h a r l e s Sennett, a minister in the Church of Christ, d i s c o v e r e d the body of h i s w i f e , E l i z a b e t h D o r l e n e S e n n e t t , i n t h e i r home on C o o n Dog C e m e t e r y R o a d i n Colbert County. The coroner testified that E l i z a b e t h S e n n e t t had been s t a b b e d e i g h t t i m e s i n t h e c h e s t a n d o n c e on e a c h s i d e o f t h e n e c k , a n d h a d s u f f e r e d n u m e r o u s a b r a s i o n s a n d c u t s . I t was the coroner's o p i n i o n that Sennett d i e d of m u l t i p l e stab wounds t o t h e c h e s t and neck. "The e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t C h a r l e s S e n n e t t had recruited Billy Gray Williams, who in turn r e c r u i t e d S m i t h and John F o r r e s t P a r k e r , t o k i l l h i s wife. He was t o p a y t h e m e a c h $ 1 , 0 0 0 i n c a s h f o r killing Mrs. Sennett. There was testimony that C h a r l e s S e n n e t t was i n v o l v e d i n an a f f a i r , t h a t he h a d i n c u r r e d s u b s t a n t i a l d e b t s , t h a t he h a d taken o u t a l a r g e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y on h i s w i f e , a n d t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y one w e e k a f t e r t h e m u r d e r , when t h e m u r d e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s t a r t e d t o f o c u s on h i m as a suspect, Sennett committed s u i c i d e . Smith d e t a i l e d hte f o l l o w i n g i n h i s c o n f e s s i o n t o p o l i c e : " ' A b o u t one m o n t h p r i o r t o M a r c h 18, 1 9 8 8 , I was c o n t a c t e d b y B i l l y Williams. B i l l y came o v e r t o my h o u s e a n d we t a l k e d out on the front porch. I t was late a f t e r n o o n . B i l l y s a i d t h a t he k n e w s o m e o n e t h a t wanted somebody h u r t . B i l l y said that the p e r s o n wanted to pay t o have i t done. B i l l y s a i d t h e p e r s o n w o u l d p a y $ 1 5 0 0 t o do the j o b . I think I told B i l l y I would t h i n k about i t and get back w i t h him. Billy l i v e s at the c o r n e r of T u s c a l o o s a Street and Cypress Street near the t e l e p h o n e company. B i l l y d r i v e s a r e d and 5 death CR-07-1412 white Thunderbird. B i l l y and I a r e good friends. B i l l y and I t a l k e d about this s e v e r a l t i m e s b e f o r e I a g r e e d t o do i t . I had a l r e a d y t a l k e d w i t h John P a r k e r about helping me. " ' I t h i n k I f i r s t met C h a r l e s S e n n e t t a b o u t two w e e k s p r i o r t o t h e m u r d e r . Billy arranged the meeting. At the time I met Mr. S e n n e t t I d i d n o t k n o w who he w a s . I did n o t a s k h i s name a n d he d i d n o t ask w h a t my name was. Mr. S e n n e t t t o l d me t h a t he w a n t e d s o m e b o d y t a k e n c a r e o f . Mr. S e n n e t t s a i d t h a t t h e p e r s o n w o u l d be a t home, t h a t t h e y n e v e r h a d a n y visitors. Mr. S e n n e t t s a i d t h a t t h e h o u s e was o u t i n the country. At that time I j u s t l i s t e n e d to h i s p r o p o s a l and t o l d him I w o u l d get b a c k w i t h him. When we t a l k e d we s a t i n Mr. Sennett's t r u c k i n f r o n t of Billy's apartment. I g a v e h i m my p h o n e n u m b e r . "'Mr. S e n n e t t c a l l e d me a c o u p l e o f t i m e s t o s e e i f I h a d made a d e c i s i o n . Sometime b e t w e e n t h e Monday p r i o r t o t h e murder and the Thursday prior to the m u r d e r , Mr. S e n n e t t l e a r n e d t h a t J o h n and I w o u l d do w h a t he w a n t e d . I met w i t h Mr. S e n n e t t on T u e s d a y p r i o r t o t h e m u r d e r i n t h e c o f f e e [ h o u s e ] a t ECM. At t h i s meeting Mr. S e n n e t t d r e w me a d i a g r a m o f h i s h o u s e a n d t o l d me t h a t h i s w i f e a n d he w o u l d be o u t o f t o w n on W e d n e s d a y , t o go down t o t h e house and l o o k a r o u n d . By t h e t i m e S e n n e t t a n d I met a t ECM I had l e a r n e d t h r o u g h c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h h i m t h a t i t was h i s w i f e t h a t he w a n t e d k i l l e d a n d t h e p r i c e a g r e e d was $ 1 , 0 0 0 e a c h - - e x c u s e me - - $ 1 , 0 0 0 e a c h f o r B i l l y W i l l i a m s , John P a r k e r and I . prior "'The next meeting to the murder i n 6 was on f r o n t of Thursday Billy's CR-07-1412 apartment again. B i l l y , Mr. S e n n e t t and I sat i n Mr. S e n n e t t ' s s i l v e r c a r and t a l k e d . I d o n ' t r e c a l l w h a t t i m e i t was e x a c t l y . I t h i n k i t was i n t h e m o r n i n g . At t h i s m e e t i n g S e n n e t t g a v e me $200 a n d s h o w e d u s t h e r e s t o f t h e m o n e y . Two h u n d r e d d o l l a r s was f o r a n y t h i n g we n e e d e d t o do t h e j o b . J o h n P a r k e r s a t i n my c a r w h i l e B i l l y a n d I t a l k e d w i t h M r . S e n n e t t . T h e m u r d e r was supposed t o l o o k l i k e a b u r g l a r y t h a t went b a d . T h i s was M r . S e n n e t t ' s i d e a . Sennett t o l d me t o t a k e w h a t e v e r I w a n t e d f r o m t h e house. I t was a g r e e d f o r J o h n a n d I t o do the m u r d e r a n d t h e n come b a c k t o B i l l y ' s apartment t o B i l l y ' s house e x c u s e me - - a n d g e t t h e r e s t o f o u r money. This meeting only l a s t e d a short while. Sennett t o l d u s t h a t he w o u l d b e g o n e f r o m 8:30 until noon. T h e n o n 3/18 o f '88 ... F r i d a y , John and I got t o g e t h e r around 8:30. We w e r e i n J o h n ' s c a r , a P o n t i a c Grand P r i x , g o l d . John drove t o Muscle S h o a l s , t h e n I d r o v e down t o t h e S e n n e t t house. John had brought a b l a c k handle s u r v i v a l k n i f e and a b l a c k h o l s t e r . At t h i s t i m e we s t i l l d i d n o t k n o w how we w e r e going to k i l l Mrs. Sennett. "'John and I g o t t o t h e S e n n e t t house a r o u n d 9:30, I t h i n k . I parked at the back of t h e house n e a r a l i t t l e p a t i o t h a t l e d i n t o t h e house. I went t o a door t o t h e l e f t o f t h e c a r . I t h i n k t h e r e was a w h i t e f r e e z e r nearby. I k n o c k e d on t h e d o o r a n d M r s . S e n n e t t came t o t h e d o o r . I t o l d M r s . S e n n e t t t h a t h e r husband had t o l d us t h a t we c o u l d come down a n d l o o k a r o u n d t h e p r o p e r t y t o s e e a b o u t h u n t i n g on i t . M r s . S e n n e t t a s k e d my name. I t o l d h e r I was Kenny Smith. She went t o t h e p h o n e a n d c a l l e d h e r h u s b a n d a n d came b a c k a n d t o l d u s i t was o k a y t o l o o k a r o u n d . 7 CR-07-1412 "'John property f o r house. John We t o l d M r s . bathroom and and I looked around the a w h i l e t h e n came b a c k t o t h e and I went b a c k t o t h e d o o r . S e n n e t t we n e e d e d t o u s e t h e she l e t us i n s i d e . " ' I went t o t h e b a t h r o o m n e a r e s t t h e k i t c h e n and t h e n J o h n went t o t h e bathroom. I s t o o d a t t h e edge o f t h e k i t c h e n t a l k i n g with Mrs. Sennett. Mrs. Sennett was s i t t i n g a t a c h a i r i n the den. Then I heard John coming t h r o u g h t h e house. John w a l k e d up b e h i n d M r s . S e n n e t t a n d s t a r t e d h i t t i n g h e r . J o h n was h i t t i n g h e r w i t h h i s fist. I s t a r t e d g e t t i n g t h e VCR w h i l e J o h n was b e a t i n g M r s . S e n n e t t . John h i t Mrs. S e n n e t t w i t h a l a r g e cane and a n y t h i n g e l s e he c o u l d g e t h i s h a n d s o n . J o h n w e n t i n t o a frenzy. M r s . S e n n e t t was y e l l i n g j u s t s t o p , we c o u l d h a v e a n y t h i n g we w a n t e d . " ' A s J o h n was b e a t i n g up M r s . S e n n e t t , I m e s s e d up some t h i n g s i n t h e h o u s e t o make i t l o o k l i k e a b u r g l a r y . I took the VCR o u t t o t h e c a r . "'The l a s t p l a c e I saw M r s . S e n n e t t s h e was l y i n g n e a r t h e f i r e p l a c e c o v e r e d w i t h some k i n d o f b l a n k e t . I had gone outside to look i n the storage buildings when I saw J o h n r u n o u t t o t h e p o n d a n d t h r o w some t h i n g s i n i t . I a l s o t o o k a s m a l l s t e r e o from t h e house -- " a l s o , " i s the l a s t word. " ' I d o n ' t k n o w w h a t b r a n d i t was o r where i n t h e house I g o t i t . The VCR was a Samsung. I g o t i t f r o m u n d e r t h e TV s e t i n t h e d e n . When J o h n g o t b a c k t o t h e c a r we d r o v e b a c k t o B i l l y ' s a p a r t m e n t t o g e t o u r money. 8 CR-07-1412 "'On t h e way b a c k J o h n t o l d me t h a t he had s t a b b e d h e r once i n the neck. I never s t a b b e d M r s . S e n n e t t a t a l l . When J o h n a n d I g o t t o B i l l y ' s , we w e r e g i v e n $ 90 0 a piece. B i l l y g a v e us t h e m o n e y . "'At the time of the murder I never [knew] Charles Sennett's name or his wife's. I t was o n l y when i t came o u t i n the n e w s p a p e r t h a t I l e a r n e d t h e name o f the lady that was killed and Charles Sennett. " ' I t o o k t h e S a m s u n g VCR home w i t h me. The l a s t t i m e I saw t h e s t e r e o i t was i n J o h n ' s c a r . I t was a r o u n d n o o n when we g o t to B i l l y ' s apartment. T h e n on 3 / 3 1 / 8 8 - ¬ i n p a r e n t h e s i s , T h u r s d a y - - my h o u s e was s e a r c h e d by i n v e s t i g a t o r s and t h e y f o u n d the VCR. I was brought to the C o l b e r t C o u n t y C o u r t h o u s e w h e r e I was a d v i s e d o f my rights. A f t e r b e i n g a d v i s e d o f my r i g h t s , I gave Investigator May this written statement.' " S m i t h ' s s t a t e m e n t t o p o l i c e was c o r r o b o r a t e d a t trial. Donald Buckman, a friend of Smith's, t e s t i f i e d t h a t S m i t h a p p r o a c h e d h i m a b o u t one w e e k b e f o r e t h e m u r d e r a n d a s k e d h i m i f he w o u l d be i n t e r e s t e d i n p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n b e a t i n g s o m e o n e up i n e x c h a n g e f o r money. A n o t h e r w i t n e s s , B r e n t B a r k l e y , t e s t i f i e d t h a t S m i t h t o l d h i m t h a t he h a d b e e n h i r e d t o b e a t up s o m e o n e . B a r k l e y a l s o s t a t e d t h a t he saw S m i t h on t h e e v e n i n g o f t h e m u r d e r a n d t h a t S m i t h ' s h a n d was ' b r u i s e d and wrapped.' T h e r e was also t e s t i m o n y t h a t Smith had i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n a l a r g e a m o u n t o f money i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r t h e m u r d e r . "Smith's defense at trial was that p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the a s s a u l t of E l i z a b e t h Sennett 9 he but CR-07-1412 t h a t he d i d n o t i n t e n d opening statement stated to k i l l her. the f o l l o w i n g : Counsel in " ' [ S m i t h ] a g r e e d w i t h S e n n e t t t o go beat E l i z a b e t h Dorlene Sennett, to rough h e r u p , t o make i t l o o k l i k e a r o b b e r y f o r f a s t cash. That i s t h e terms t h e y used. I t was n o t t o k i l l M r s . S e n n e t t . I t was not to take her l i f e . As s h a m e f u l and as v i l e , i t was n o t h i n g m o r e o r n o t h i n g l e s s t h a n t o b e a t h e r up a n d t o t a k e [ s i c ] . And t h a t p l a n , what t h e y a g r e e d t o -- and you w i l l h e a r e v i d e n c e o f t h i s - t h a t as e v i l as t h a t p l a n was, t h a t i s a l l i t was.'" Smith v. S t a t e , 908 So. 2d a t 279-81 Standard "[W]hen the facts is presented with in a Rule 2d 1097, pure 2 of Review a r e u n d i s p u t e d a n d an a p p e l l a t e questions of law, that 32 p r o c e e d i n g i s d e n o v o . " 1098 (footnotes omitted). court court's review Ex p a r t e W h i t e , 792 So. ( A l a . 2001). B i l l y G r a y W i l l i a m s and John F o r r e s t P a r k e r were a l s o convicted f o r t h e c a p i t a l murder o f E l i z a b e t h Sennett. W i l l i a m s was s e n t e n c e d t o l i f e imprisonment without the p o s s i b i l i t y o f p a r o l e , a n d h i s c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e were a f f i r m e d on d i r e c t a p p e a l . See W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 565 So. 2d 1233 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 0 ) . P a r k e r was s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h b y e l e c t r o c u t i o n ; h i s c o n v i c t i o n and s e n t e n c e were a f f i r m e d on d i r e c t a p p e a l . P a r k e r v. S t a t e , 587 So. 2d 1072 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) , on remand, 610 So. 2d 1171 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . ) , a f f ' d , 610 So. 2d 1181 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . 2 10 CR-07-1412 Analysis In the f i r s t appeal Smith summarily three contends dismissed Part due process when that time, plead court's motion amended court petition. erred It argues in his right to failed to Smith contends t h a t , because the case was the ground of when Smith court denied many that the Smith claims had stage of the p o s t c o n v i c t i o n proceeding sufficiently. Smith argues that of the improper standard in light of for discovery. fact The that the to the was court at -- o n l y t o p r o v e any o f t h e c l a i m s he, circuit particularly also denied his court may State argues that a t r i a l adopt t h e S t a t e ' s p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s law, that reflects there the conclusions i s no trial of law, reason the curious evidence because and the to court's and that i n s t a n c e s where the c i r c u i t by on his on application prejudicial trial in his brief in h a d no b u r d e n them the i t dismissed petition the p l e a d i n g Smith presents that the c i r c u i t "prove" h i s claims. in that the I of h i s b r i e f amended issues doubt own Smith that the findings has final of failed order fact to of and cite any c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s are not supported the record. record does 11 The not State's reflect argument that the is State CR-07-1412 filed a proposed court adopted Smith does n o t argue a proposed dismissed amend Ala. due and a clear ineffective court's and allowing The The specific by the trial the State, court and adopted then that the t r i a l fair him an argues statement was counsel opportunity that Rule to 32.7, summarily the requirement of of the grounds of the factual argues court when i t of to dismiss to s a t i s f y of counsel hearing assistance court disclosure State assistance State a trial i f i tfails and a ineffective without including full claim. In of permits 32 p e t i t i o n trial that the c i r c u i t Smith argues process again. R. C r i m . P., relief, prepared as e r r o r t h a t h i s claims notice pleading the of the p e t i t i o n a Rule each order I I of h i s b r i e f him without not r e f l e c t order. In P a r t deprived i t does proposed a order, that each properly for basis for claim of dismissed by court. Part I I I of h i s b r i e f judgment should Smith be r e v e r s e d argues because that the trial the c i r c u i t court a d d r e s s e d t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n even though t h a t p e t i t i o n h a d b e e n s u p e r s e d e d b y an a m e n d e d p e t i t i o n . 12 The CR-07-1412 State the argues that Smith's c l a i m i s m e r i t l e s s because, i t says, trial court specifically addressed the amended claims. A. Turning his brief it first to that the dismissed without merit for -- notice to that the and the argument Smith r a i s e s i n P a r t trial court denied him due process ineffective-assistance-of-counsel an claim. opportunity Rule 32.7, to Ala. be R. heard Crim. II -- we P., of when claims find no provides summary d i s p o s i t i o n o f p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n s i n c e r t a i n circumstances: " I f the c o u r t determines t h a t the p e t i t i o n i s not s u f f i c i e n t l y s p e c i f i c , or i s p r e c l u d e d , or f a i l s t o s t a t e a c l a i m , o r t h a t no m a t e r i a l i s s u e o f f a c t or law e x i s t s w h i c h would e n t i t l e the p e t i t i o n e r to r e l i e f u n d e r t h i s r u l e a n d t h a t no p u r p o s e w o u l d be s e r v e d by any further proceedings, the c o u r t may e i t h e r d i s m i s s the p e t i t i o n or grant leave to file an a m e n d e d p e t i t i o n . " This Court has stated: "An evidentiary hearing on a coram nobis p e t i t i o n [now R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n ] i s r e q u i r e d o n l y i f t h e p e t i t i o n i s ' m e r i t o r i o u s on i t s f a c e . ' Ex p a r t e Boatwright, 471 S o . 2 d 1257 (Ala.1985). A petition i s ' m e r i t o r i o u s on i t s f a c e ' o n l y i f i t c o n t a i n s a c l e a r and s p e c i f i c s t a t e m e n t of the grounds upon which r e l i e f i s sought, i n c l u d i n g f u l l d i s c l o s u r e of the facts relied upon (as o p p o s e d t o a general s t a t e m e n t c o n c e r n i n g t h e n a t u r e and e f f e c t o f t h o s e f a c t s ) s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r i s e n t i t l e d to r e l i e f i f those f a c t s are t r u e . Ex 13 CR-07-1412 parte Boatwright, 483 (Ala.1986)." Moore v. v. State, State, (Ala. [Ms. Crim. Thus 2d 819, [Ms. 9, 2009] evidentiary hearing. "[t]here CR-06-2233, 2010). t h a t m u s t be Clemons, is no March So. is not that a by 2010] the 1041915, noted for R. raised by the Although sponte dismissal Crim. P., 4, by of even or they Court has circuit court State S c o t t v. State, , (Ala. 3d the a i f a r e w a i v e d , Ex 2007] pleading So. of trial petition the 3d and pursuant parte (Ala. postconviction court 32 can to claims provide Rule d e f i c i e n c i e s are 32.7, not first the trial State. Smith argues t h a t , at c o u r t s h o u l d not have d i s m i s s e d counsel So. State May can sua automatically from the a motion to dismiss d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the grounds Lee , Moreover, t h i s requirement 2 6, 2007), be 3d U n l i k e the p r e c l u s i o n a r y grounds of Rule pleaded [Ms. So.2d ( A l a . 1986), quoted i n s u m m a r i l y d e n y i n g a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . " C r i m . App. Ala. 820 C l i s b y , 501 petitioner even r e c e i v e a response or before parte 2009). postconviction t o an recognized So. Ex CR-07-0054, Oct. App. a entitled 502 supra; claims without the g i v i n g him 14 the very least, ineffective-assistance-ofthe o p p o r t u n i t y t o amend the CR-07-1412 petition, Smith d i d n o t move time; therefore, court as t o an amended p e t i t i o n . adverse is ruling there regarding not p r o p e r l y before State, i s no t o amend adverse Court 913 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 3 , 1124 ruling Because a proposed this the p e t i t i o n from Smith amendment, f o r review. ( A l a . C r i m . App. a second the trial s u f f e r e d no this argument E.g., Boyd v. 2003). B. Turning brief -- because to the issue that the i t failed petition -- trial Smith raises court committed to address we agree i n Part I I I of h i s reversible error t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e amended that the trial court's his original Rule 32 p e t i t i o n order i s on M a r c h 16, problematic. Smith filed 2006. The S t a t e 2006. Smith filed 1, 2007, October dismissal, in filed seeking an a n s w e r to the p e t i t i o n an a m e n d e d p e t i t i o n the State filed summary d i s p o s i t i o n t h e amended p e t i t i o n . in t h e amended motion 1, 2 0 0 7 . for On partial o f many c l a i m s raised The m o t i o n f o r p a r t i a l d i s m i s s a l d i d not seek d i s m i s s a l o f , or o t h e r w i s e claims of i n e f f e c t i v e a on J u n e on J u l y 2 1 , mention, a m a j o r i t y of the assistance of counsel presented petition. 15 by Smith CR-07-1412 On March summarily order 2008, dismissing addressed petition, the State's of amended p e t i t i o n . court The Smith response fact court next trial claims the trial the the p e t i t i o n . findings court's The 13, and addressed It first first raised to law entered the to i t s findings the original claims, relative order 38 p a g e s o f in those the and those the claims. relative to the stated: "The allegations contained in Section I of P e t i t i o n e r ' s F i r s t Amended P e t i t i o n a r e r e d u n d a n t t o the a l l e g a t i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n S e c t i o n I , I-A, I-B, I C ( i n c l u d i n g s u b - p a r t s 1, 2 & 3 ) , I-D (including sub-parts 1, 3 through 7 ) , I-E, I-F (including s u b - p a r t s I t h r o u g h 5 ) , I-G, I - I , I I - A t h r o u g h E, I I I - A t h r o u g h C , I V - A & B, V-A & B, V I , V I I , V I I I , IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV of the initial Petition for Relief. This Court adopts and i n c o r p o r a t e s i t s f i n d i n g s r e l a t i v e t o t h o s e same c l a i m s as e n u n c i a t e d a b o v e . " (C. 47.) The Smith trial had summarily court raised in next the those of the after and filed a motion (C. 4 7 - 4 9 . ) claims petition, The Smith i t d i s m i s s e d them. 16 for partial court then had and claims d i s m i s s e d t h e c l a i m s on g r o u n d s o f p r e c l u s i o n additional petition, substantive court claims. amended the the n o t i n g t h a t the S t a t e had of addressed raised Smith dismissal addressed in filed the a some amended motion to CR-07-1412 reconsider, the alter, amended amend, petition, or vacate and he t h e summary d i s m i s s a l o f argued that the court erroneously addressed the a l l e g a t i o n s of h i s o r i g i n a l even that though petition. the petition In i t s order trial court had been denying had petition s u p e r s e d e d b y t h e amended Smith's motion to reconsider stated: "The i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e O r i g i n a l P e t i t i o n w e r e n o t n e c e s s a r y [ s i c ] w a i v e d by t h e f i l i n g o f an Amended Petition. The issues raised i n the O r i g i n a l P e t i t i o n and t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e Amended P e t i t i o n w e r e a l l w e l l a d d r e s s e d i n t h i s C o u r t ' s O r d e r on R u l e 32. I n many i n s t a n c e s f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t i o n o f an i s s u e b y a n d t h r o u g h t h e A m e n d e d P e t i t i o n d i d n o t change t h i s c o u r t ' s findings with regard to that issue." (C. 668.) The error amended Rule i n the t r i a l 32 petition motion to reconsider statement raised the of the t r i a l the o r i g i n a l trial original court petition and dismissing i n the order order i s not only petition petition, court's petition order and t h e amended i n the o r i g i n a l majority of that that court's order when, continues Smith's denying Smith's the t r i a l court's d i d not "waive" but also the fact that a addresses the a l l e g a t i o n s as S m i t h c o r r e c t l y argued to to argue i n this Court, was s u p e r s e d e d b y an a m e n d e d p e t i t i o n 17 issues the -- a n CR-07-1412 amendment he f i l e d do so. The R u l e s after i s also proceeding understood pursuant to Rule that 32, a So. i s basically 2 d 1 4 1 , 146 pleading Alabama civil although i n nature," However, touching i s appropriate Supreme C o u r t here. Smith v. S t a t e , In on of Criminal ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2005), and r e f e r e n c e rules whether postconviction c r i m i n a l m a t t e r s and g o v e r n e d by t h e Alabama Rules Procedure, court to s u p e r s e d e s an o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n . generally filed of the t r i a l o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e do n o t a d d r e s s an a m e n d e d p e t i t i o n "[i]t obtaining leave civil 918 to c i v i l cases, the has s t a t e d : "An a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t supersedes the p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d c o m p l a i n t and becomes t h e o p e r a t i v e p l e a d i n g , unless i t subsequently i s modified. Grayson v. H a n s o n , 843 S o . 2 d 146 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . [The d e f e n d a n t ' s ] J u n e 2, 2 0 0 4 , m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s i s a d d r e s s e d s o l e l y to the original complaint, and the original complaint has been superseded. See H o l l e y v . S t . Paul Fire & M a r i n e I n s . C o . , 396 S o . 2 d 75 ( A l a . 1981)(noting that once an amended pleading i s i n t e r p o s e d , t h e o r i g i n a l p l e a d i n g no l o n g e r p e r f o r m s any function and any subsequent motion by an o p p o s i n g p a r t y s h o u l d be d i r e c t e d t o t h e a m e n d e d pleading) " Ex parte Puccio, Therefore filed 923 S o . 2 d 1 0 6 9 , 1 0 7 2 when, with an a m e n d e d p e t i t i o n clearly intended leave from (Ala. 2005). the t r i a l court, t h a t was a c o m p l e t e p e t i t i o n to replace the o r i g i n a l 18 petition, Smith a n d was the trial CR-07-1412 court erred petition when i t a d d r e s s e d t h e and the Furthermore, the we State's after response i t addressed o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n the note -- that the allegations to at trial the allegations I-D Section I, I-A, I through IV-A XIII, C, XIV, through XV a d o p t e d and 47.) initial & B, of the trial 1, 3 through 7), I-G, V-A from petition. The i t s answer included raised of and irrelevant in the the so to the for IX, 2 & 3), (including E, X, III-A XI, Relief," those XII, and i t claims. summaries of the State's allegations in the initial file the answer to the court's trial an adoption and original petition on the discussion petition. 19 1, of reliance amended contained in i t s discussion from the the Smith's through regarding a p p a r e n t l y d i d not i t s findings discussion particularly claims of to of I-F VIII, Petition extensive amended p e t i t i o n , h o w e v e r , incorporation VII, findings I I-E, of incorrectly, sub-parts II-A i t s findings court's State VI, initial p e t i t i o n included arguments I-I, & B, incorporated The (including 5), -- allegations I-C (including sub-parts sub-parts (C. I-B, original allegations Section amended p e t i t i o n were " r e d u n d a n t t o t h e in the stated in the original petition. length court of State's and that answer is resolution of Moreover, as Smith CR-07-1412 correctly argues incorporating trial the court in brief, i t s findings appeared stated, did not When S m i t h issue." error o f an i s s u e change this had Court's raised, petition neither Smith's the t r i a l added.) however, elaboration those of issues motion petition, raised a n d h a d no error the motion further Petition with to regard statement to an issue that raised i n the an the relevance i n t h e amended p e t i t i o n 20 amended f i n d i n g s , but the court how i t sfindings that i n the t r i a l to reconsider, r e f e r r e d to the S t a t e ' s arguments, answer court's instances nor stated Smith's State's i n the Rather than r e s o l v i n g the court's order the address t h e s t a t e m e n t i m p l i e s t h a t , i n some We n o t e , f u r t h e r m o r e , to to t h e Amended that were changed. denying the failed " I n many findings d i d change t h e t r i a l designated petition, court denied by and t h r o u g h a d d i t i o n a l concern because instances, and r a i s e d the t r i a l part, (C. 6 6 8 . ) ( E m p h a s i s Smith initial and then adopting a l l e g a t i o n s Smith had i n c l u d e d i n relevant elaboration simply the from h i s motion to reconsider, and by to overlook additional factual amended p e t i t i o n . in his the court a p p a r e n t l y making original -- court's reference superseded to the r e s o l u t i o n of Smith had again filed. -¬ claims CR-07-1412 For erred the foregoing when State's i t addressed answer to t h a t p e t i t i o n had The judgment reasons, that we hold Smith's initial petition in been s u p e r s e d e d by must be reversed that the trial petition its final and order S m i t h ' s amended and the cause court the because petition. remanded for further proceedings, i n accordance w i t h the d i r e c t i o n s set in of the final portion this out opinion. C. We brief address three because 1. the Burden First, of a d d i t i o n a l arguments Smith r a i s e d i n h i s issues might pleading and counsel those on the 32.3, petitioner to evidence the Ala. of Rule R. plead claims that remand. proof I of h i s b r i e f t h a t the of i n e f f e c t i v e Smith had Crim. and P., prove places by a f a c t s necessary to e n t i t l e burden to plead times ground of on failed trial assistance to "prove" claims. Rule The burden Smith argues i n Part c o u r t e r r e d when i t d i s m i s s e d of a r i s e again and Ala. burden preponderance him or her to on the of the relief. the burden to prove a r i s e at d i f f e r e n t a postconviction 32.6(b), the R. proceeding, Crim. 21 P., however. states: CR-07-1412 "The p e t i t i o n m u s t c o n t a i n a c l e a r a n d s p e c i f i c statement of the grounds upon which relief is sought, including full d i s c l o s u r e of the factual b a s i s of those grounds. A bare a l l e g a t i o n that a constitutional right has been v i o l a t e d and mere conclusions of law shall not be sufficient to w a r r a n t any f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . " In 2006), Hyde v . this State, Court 950 So. 2d 344, 356 (Ala. Crim. stated: "The burden o f p l e a d i n g u n d e r R u l e 32.3 and Rule 3 2 . 6 ( b ) i s a h e a v y one. C o n c l u s i o n s u n s u p p o r t e d by s p e c i f i c f a c t s w i l l not s a t i s f y the requirements of R u l e 32.3 a n d R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) . The f u l l f a c t u a l b a s i s for t h e c l a i m m u s t be included i n the petition itself. I f , assuming every f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n i n a Rule 32 petition to be true, a court cannot determine whether the p e t i t i o n e r is entitled to r e l i e f , t h e p e t i t i o n e r has not s a t i s f i e d t h e b u r d e n o f p l e a d i n g u n d e r R u l e 32.3 a n d R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) . See B r a c k n e l l v . S t a t e , 883 S o . 2 d 724 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). To sufficiently p l e a d an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel, a Rule 32 p e t i t i o n e r n o t o n l y must ' i d e n t i f y t h e [specific] a c t s or o m i s s i o n s of c o u n s e l t h a t are a l l e g e d not to have been the r e s u l t of reasonable professional judgment,' S t r i c k l a n d v. W a s h i n g t o n , 466 U.S. 668, 6 9 0 , 104 S . C t . 2 0 5 2 , 80 L . E d . 2 d 674 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , b u t a l s o m u s t p l e a d s p e c i f i c f a c t s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he o r s h e was p r e j u d i c e d b y t h e a c t s o r o m i s s i o n s , i . e . , f a c t s i n d i c a t i n g 'that there i s a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t , but f o r counsel's u n p r o f e s s i o n a l e r r o r s , the r e s u l t of the p r o c e e d i n g would have been d i f f e r e n t . ' 466 U.S. a t 6 9 4 , 104 S . C t . 2 0 5 2 , 80 L . E d . 2 d 674. A bare allegation that prejudice occurred without specific f a c t s i n d i c a t i n g how the p e t i t i o n e r was p r e j u d i c e d i s not s u f f i c i e n t . " 22 App. CR-07-1412 Although plead Rule 32 imposes with specificity, claims at the i n i t i a l on a petitioner i t does not impose pleading stage. the burden a burden T h i s C o u r t has to to prove stated: "Initially, i t i s important to distinguish between a petitioner's burden to plead and a p e t i t i o n e r ' s burden to prove. " ' [ A ] t t h e p l e a d i n g s t a g e o f R u l e 32 p r o c e e d i n g s , a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n e r d o e s n o t have t h e burden o f p r o v i n g h i s c l a i m s by a preponderance of the e v i d e n c e . Rather, at t h e p l e a d i n g s t a g e , a p e t i t i o n e r must o n l y p r o v i d e "a c l e a r a n d s p e c i f i c s t a t e m e n t o f the grounds upon w h i c h r e l i e f i s s o u g h t . " Rule 32.6(b), Ala.R.Crim.P. Once a p e t i t i o n e r h a s met h i s b u r d e n o f p l e a d i n g s o as t o a v o i d s u m m a r y d i s p o s i t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 3 2 . 7 ( d ) , A l a . R . C r i m . P . , he i s t h e n entitled to an o p p o r t u n i t y to present evidence i n order to s a t i s f y h i s burden of proof.' " F o r d v . S t a t e , 831 S o . 2 d 641 , 644 (Ala.Crim.App. 2001). A c l a i m may n o t be summarily dismissed b e c a u s e t h e p e t i t i o n e r f a i l e d t o meet h i s b u r d e n o f proof at the i n i t i a l p l e a d i n g stage, a stage at w h i c h t h e p e t i t i o n e r has o n l y a b u r d e n t o p l e a d . " Johnson v. 2001) . See 2007), and 2002) (each State, 835 Kelley v. Borden case v. was because the t r i a l So. 2d State, State, remanded 1077, 1079-80 App. 985 So. 2d 972 (Ala. Crim. App. 891 So. 2d 393 (Ala. Crim. App. for further c o u r t d i s m i s s e d the Rule p l e a d i n g stage based (Ala. Crim. on p e t i t i o n e r ' s 23 proceedings in part 32 p e t i t i o n a t purported failure the t o meet CR-07-1412 his burden of p r o o f ) . See a l s o 0978, A u g u s t 29, 2008] Smith presents So. 3d several extensive order dismissed thepetition failed t o prove that, he h i s claims. court b a s e d on S m i t h ' s p u r p o r t e d held support a that claim presumption that quotations says, Smith from t h e t r i a l demonstrate We failure that with of proof; Smith counsel's actions to provide support of a claim of prejudice court's the that Smith dismissed to "present (C. 1 3 ) ; t h a t (C. 2 3 ) ; t h a t h e " f a i l e d agree erroneously failed [Ms. C R - 0 6 - ( A l a . Crim. App. 2008). b a s e d on i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n appears that the t r i a l court P a r t a i n v. S t a t e , court he h a d that i t many claims f o r example, t h e any e v i d e n c e " failed to to "rebut the were sound t r i a l strategy" anything Court" i n to this (C. 3 5 ) ; a n d t h a t he f a i l e d t o " d e m o n s t r a t e " t h a t c o u n s e l ' s p e r f o r m a n c e was d e f i c i e n t o r t h a t he 26, suffered prejudice as a r e s u l t o f c o u n s e l ' s p e r f o r m a n c e (C. 27, 30, 34, 3 9 ) . As n o t e d 3 above, a petitioner i n a Rule We n o t e , t o o , t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d when i t h e l d t h a t some o f S m i t h ' s c l a i m s o f i n e f f e c t i v e assistance of c o u n s e l w e r e p r e c l u d e d b y R u l e 32.2 (a) (3) a n d R u l e 32. 2 ( a ) ( 5 ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P. ( C . 2 0 . ) S m i t h was r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e same a t t o r n e y s a t t r i a l a n d on a p p e a l , a n d c o u n s e l a r e n o t e x p e c t e d t o a l l e g e t h e i r own i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s . E.g., N e l s o n v. S t a t e , 649 So. 2 d 1299, 1300 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . 3 24 CR-07-1412 32 p r o c e e d i n g h a s no b u r d e n initial to prove h i s allegations pleading stage. We caution the t r i a l between t h e burden addresses 2. court the c l a i m s i n Smith's Brady on remand o f p l e a d i n g and t h e burden v. Maryland Smith a l l e g e d v. M a r y l a n d , three of Smith's Crim. The S t a t e Brady acknowledges to disclose i n i t s brief c l a i m s -- t h e c l a i m s d i s c u s s e d i n - V I . D . o f S m i t h ' s b r i e f on a p p e a l -- w e r e b a s e d o n P. allegations 32.1(e); the State violated 3 7 3 U.S. 83 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , b y f a i l i n g evidence. allegations R. o f p r o o f when i t i n h i s amended p e t i t i o n , a n d a g a i n i n P a r t s Brady Part VI.B. distinguish claims - V I . D . o f h i s b r i e f on a p p e a l , t h a t exculpatory to amended p e t i t i o n . VI.A. that o f newly The d i s c o v e r e d evidence, Rule trial i n light instead, court d i d not address of the requirements the trial 32.1(e), court 32.2(a)(3) and Rule held 32.2(a)(5), the set forth that a l l e g a t i o n s were s u b j e c t t o v a r i o u s p r o c e d u r a l b a r s , Rule at the A l a . R. Ala. Brady i n Rule the Brady including Crim. P. 4 T h e t r i a l c o u r t a l s o d e t e r m i n e d t h a t one o f t h e B r a d y claims f a i l e d b e c a u s e d e f e n s e c o u n s e l " o s t e n s i b l y " knew a b o u t the i n f o r m a t i o n b e f o r e t r i a l , and s t a t e d t h a t " i t has n o t been shown" t h a t c o u n s e l ' s f a i l u r e t o p r e s e n t t h e e v i d e n c e "was anything other than p a r t of the t r i a l s t r a t e g y . " (C. 54.) A p a r t from the f a c t t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r o n e o u s l y f a u l t e d 4 25 CR-07-1412 Although of bar we do n o t e x p r e s s the Brady grounds, consider the c l a i m s were we Smith's evidence 3. that the t r i a l claims i n light was n e w l y argues court about subject to dismissal court on p r o c e d u r a l - on r e m a n d of h i s argument t h a t should some o f claim i n P a r t IX o f h i s b r i e f e r r e d when i t dismissed, on a p p e a l i n part 32.2(a)(3) a n d R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( a ) ( 5 ) , A l a . R. C r i m . had i n t h e amended p e t i t i o n raised whether any discovered. Lethal-injection Smith trial note an o p i n i o n h e r e alleging that the based on P., t h e c l a i m he that e x e c u t i o n by l e t h a l i n j e c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s c r u e l and u n u s u a l punishment. we d i d i n McNabb 2007), we dismissal v. S t a t e , question the of the claim electrocution was pursuant t h e method c o n v i c t e d and s e n t e n c e d , statute providing of execution 991 S o . 2 d 313 propriety that Court denied Smith's the to Rule of ( A l a . Crim. As App. circuit court's 32.2(a)(5) because execution when Smith was and because t h e e f f e c t i v e date o f t h e lethal i n Alabama of Rule was i n j e c t i o n was t h e p r i m a r y means more application than one year f o rrehearing. after this Applying the S m i t h f o r f a i l i n g t o meet h i s b u r d e n o f " p r o o f " , the court u n n e c e s s a r i l y merged a d i s c u s s i o n o f i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f counsel i n the Brady i s s u e , l e a d i n g t o c o n f u s i o n about the c o u r t ' s u l t i m a t e h o l d i n g as t o t h e B r a d y c l a i m . 26 CR-07-1412 same rationale, court's Rule we question the propriety d i s m i s s a l of the l e t h a l - i n j e c t i o n of the claim circuit pursuant to 32.2(a)(3). We claim e x p r e s s no o p i n i o n i s subject about t o summary whether the l e t h a l - i n j e c t i o n d i s m i s s a l on a n y o t h e r grounds. Conclusion For the reasons discussed i n Part s e c t i o n o f t h i s o p i n i o n , we r e v e r s e and remand t h i s address of determines the to the t r i a l amended finds that Allegations State i n the properly amended petition Rule and Rule 32.6(b), summarily dismissed. R. Crim. P., court i f the court claim, or i f i t finds that exists that would be the 32 dismissed the Crim. P., court i f the the procedural that to petition. trial trial the s p e c i f i c i t y A l a . R. court bars. court required i n may also be F u r t h e r m o r e , p u r s u a n t t o Rule 32.7, A l a . the t r i a l amended p e t i t i o n may judgment f o r that that pleaded were n o t p l e a d e d w i t h court's amended R u l e barred determines 32.3 court petition are procedurally of the " A n a l y s i s " the t r i a l the a l l e g a t i o n s i n Smith's Allegations court cause B entitle may dismiss finds that no m a t e r i a l Smith 27 a l l e g a t i o n s of the they f a i l issue to r e l i e f to state a of fact under the or law claim. CR-07-1412 Smith i s e n t i t l e d claims that grounds facts on for relief P. their face order order which the hearing. all include proceedings, The circuit court will Rule 32.9, A l a . that i s entitled any c l a i m s i n and m e r i t o r i o u s t o an i n Rule the court evidentiary 32.9(a), have court a take A l a . R. relevant s h a l l then enter i n Smith's or other proceeding an o r d e r amended record 28 enter t o any c l a i m s f o r or a addressing petition, and i t o f any a d d i t i o n a l are held. a l l action necessary c l e r k makes due r e t u r n reconsider i t s a n d i t may fact-finding i f any p r o c e e d i n g s take may f o r discovery, discovery a transcript shall include court determines that Smith i s e n t i t l e d Smith The t r i a l on a n d t h a t t h e c o u r t may i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n Smith's motion court of the determines as p r o v i d e d allegations raised shall court proceeding, allowing statement Smith to r e l i e f . Smith means I f the t r i a l denying specific e v i d e n c e on a n y are s u f f i c i e n t l y pleaded claims, fact-finding and to present and t h e f a c t s r e l i e d and t h a t by o t h e r C r i m . P. a clear I f the t r i a l on t h o s e evidence an a amended p e t i t i o n hearing to contain that, i ftrue, entitle R. C r i m . the t o an o p p o r t u n i t y to this Court t o see t h a t the at the e a r l i e s t CR-07-1412 possible time, and w i t h i n 42 d a y s after the release of this opinion. R E V E R S E D AND REMANDED Windom, concurs Kellum, WITH and Main, i n the result. 29 DIRECTIONS. J J . , concur. Wise, P . J . ,

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.