Eugene Legon Elliott III v. State of Alabama
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 03/26/2010 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, 2009-2010 CR-08-1721 Eugene Legon E l l i o t t I I I v. S t a t e o f Alabama A p p e a l from Etowah C i r c u i t C o u r t (CC-03-1028.60; CC-05-1105.60) MAIN, Judge. Eugene Legon Elliott I I I appeals the c i r c u i t court's summary d i s m i s s a l o f h i s R u l e 32, A l a . R . C r i m . P . , p e t i t i o n f o r p o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f , i n w h i c h he c h a l l e n g e d h i s F e b r u a r y 2 7 , 2007, g u i l t y - p l e a c o n v i c t i o n s f o r f o u r c o u n t s o f p o s s e s s i o n o f CR-08-1721 a f o r g e d i n s t r u m e n t , one count first d e g r e e , one count of k i d n a p p i n g i n the of t h e f t of p r o p e r t y i n the count of b u r g l a r y i n the f i r s t first attempted rape i n the f i r s t d e g r e e . degree, Elliott and degree, one one count of was s e n t e n c e d , as a h a b i t u a l o f f e n d e r , t o 30 y e a r s ' i m p r i s o n m e n t f o r e a c h o f t h e possession-of-a-forged-instrument theft conviction, and to l i f e convictions imprisonment and for f o r the the burglary c o n v i c t i o n , t h e k i d n a p p i n g c o n v i c t i o n , and t h e a t t e m p t e d - r a p e conviction. The trial court ordered that the five s e n t e n c e s r u n c o n c u r r e n t l y and t h a t t h e t h r e e l i f e run 30-year sentences c o n s e c u t i v e l y t o e a c h o t h e r and t o t h e 3 0 - y e a r s e n t e n c e s . This Court affirmed Elliott's convictions and sentences on a p p e a l i n an u n p u b l i s h e d memorandum i s s u e d on A u g u s t 22, 2 0 0 8 . Elliott App. v. S t a t e , (No. CR-07-0467) 2008) ( t a b l e ) . This Court j u d g m e n t on S e p t e m b e r 10, 2008. filed the h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . issued a ( A l a . Crim. certificate On O c t o b e r 10, 2008, of Elliott A f t e r r e c e i v i n g a response from S t a t e , the c i r c u i t court summarily d i s m i s s e d the p e t i t i o n on J u l y 27, 2009. the So. 3d We remand f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s on two o f claims i n E l l i o t t ' s R u l e 32 2 petition. CR-08-1721 In his petition, that his g u i l t y was he Elliott a l l e g e d , among o t h e r p l e a s were i n v o l u n t a r y b e c a u s e , he n o t i n f o r m e d o f t h e c o r r e c t minimum and maximum could receive. Elliott a s s e r t e d t h a t the t r i a l n o t a d v i s e him o f t h e s e n t e n c i n g r a n g e s d u r i n g t h e things, said, he sentences court d i d guilty-plea c o l l o q u y b u t m e r e l y q u e s t i o n e d h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l as t o w h e t h e r c o u n s e l had a d v i s e d E l l i o t t o f t h e s e n t e n c i n g r a n g e s , t o w h i c h counsel his replied t h a t he had. Elliott, however, a t t a c h e d p e t i t i o n a l e t t e r he p u r p o r t e d l y r e c e i v e d f r o m h i s to trial c o u n s e l d a t e d M a r c h 11, 2008, i n w h i c h c o u n s e l s t a t e d t h a t he had r e c e i v e d no correspondence from the State regarding S t a t e ' s i n v o c a t i o n of the H a b i t u a l F e l o n y Offender HFOA"), that sentencing he was that unaware Elliott at was going h a b i t u a l o f f e n d e r , and t h a t he was His counsel Elliott being concluded, unaware the of the time to be of the Act application of ("the plea sentenced s u r p r i s e d at the and as The the HFOA, t h e r e c o r d and i s , therefore meritless. 3 the State argued i n i t s response, and t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o u n d i n i t s o r d e r , t h a t t h i s c l a i m r e f u t e d by a sentences. c o u n s e l c o u l d n o t have i n f o r m e d him o f c o r r e c t sentencing ranges. the was However, CR-08-1721 the record from Elliott's direct appeal E l l i o t t ' s c l a i m ; rather i t supports guilty-plea Elliott's ranges colloquy counsel record by ranges, counsel asked direct d i r e c t appeal made responded i n the court advise form a n d no I r e l a n d f o r m t o invoke prosecutor court Elliott I n a d d i t i o n , no m e n t i o n was made appeal. 2 setting forth the i s contained Moreover, i n the the record a l s o c o n t a i n s no w r i t t e n n o t i c e t h e HFOA n o r a n y m e n t i o n o f t h e HFOA during the g u i l t y - p l e a colloquy. the the t r i a l o f an I r e l a n d from E l l i o t t ' s the State and t h a t ranges. the colloquy from E l l i o t t ' s not refute The t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e A t no p o i n t d i d t h e t r i a l of t h e sentencing sentencing that does i f he h a d a d v i s e d E l l i o t t o f t h e s e n t e n c i n g f o r h i s crimes affirmative. during reflects it. 1 a brief At the sentencing reference hearing, to E l l i o t t ' s having p r i o r f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n s b u t d i d not s p e c i f i c a l l y mention the HFOA. The o n l y m e n t i o n o f t h e HFOA i s i n t h e t r i a l written sentencing order. Other record, the State d i d not otherwise than court's i t s r e l i a n c e on t h e refute this claim. See, T h i s c o u r t may t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f i t s own r e c o r d s . See H u l l v. S t a t e , 607 So. 2d 369, 371 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) . 1 2 I r e l a n d v . S t a t e , 47 A l a . App. 65, 250 So. 2d 602 4 (1971). CR-08-1721 e.g., P a l m e r v. S t a t e , (where the State 842 does So. not 2d 751 refute ( A l a . C r i m . App. a Rule 32 2002) petitioner's a l l e g a t i o n s , t h o s e a l l e g a t i o n s must be a c c e p t e d as t r u e ) , the cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . with sufficient R u l e 32.3 bars specificity 32.2, 3 this (Ala. C r i m . App. Elliott c o u n s e l was claim. also See, i f true, the requirements in may entitle Elliott to i s e n t i t l e d t o an o p p o r t u n i t y t o e.g., F o r d v. S t a t e , alleged ineffective in his petition f o r various reasons. c o u n s e l was to withdraw E l l i o t t ' s 831 So. that his First, 2d 641 filing said, he w i t h the p l e a agreement w i t h Specifically, Elliott p l e a d g u i l t y to the charges trial Elliott i n e f f e c t i v e f o r not pleas after, E l l i o t t not sentenced i n accordance the State. to satisfy 2001). alleged that his t r i a l was and, Therefore, E l l i o t t prove a motion to claim i s pleaded and R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) , i s n o t s u b j e c t t o t h e p r o c e d u r a l i n Rule relief. In a d d i t i o n , t h i s and a s s e r t e d t h a t he h a d agreed i n exchange f o r r e c e i v i n g 15- A l t h o u g h b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t on d i r e c t a p p e a l , E l l i o t t d i d c h a l l e n g e t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f h i s p l e a , we h e l d t h a t h i s c l a i m was n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e us b e c a u s e i t h a d n o t b e e n r a i s e d and p r e s e r v e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Therefore, i t i s n o t , as t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t a l t e r n a t i v e l y f o u n d , b a r r e d by R u l e 32.2(a)(4). See, e.g., R i l e y v. S t a t e , 892 So. 2d 471 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 20 0 4 ) . 3 5 CR-08-1721 year sentences for each of a - f o r g e d - i n s t r u m e n t c o n v i c t i o n s and and life sentences for the k i d n a p p i n g c o n v i c t i o n , and and the possession-of- f o r the t h e f t c o n v i c t i o n , burglary conviction, was concurrently. t o E l l i o t t , when he d i d n o t r e c e i v e t h e s e n t e n c e s supposed to should have f i l e d least, advised e.g., the f o r the attempted-rape c o n v i c t i o n , t h a t a l l t h e s e n t e n c e s were s u p p o s e d t o r u n According for receive under 12 So. and t h e c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . HFOA and his counsel or, at the of h i s r i g h t t o withdraw h i s p l e a s . Andrews v. S t a t e , f a i l u r e to provide agreement, a motion to withdraw h i s pleas him t r i a l c o u n s e l was the 3d 728 ( A l a . C r i m . App. See, 2009), Second, E l l i o t t a l l e g e d t h a t h i s i n e f f e c t i v e f o r not o b j e c t i n g t o the State's him w i t h n o t i c e o f i t s i n t e n t t o i n v o k e f o r not o b j e c t i n g to the S t a t e ' s the f a i l u r e to prove any p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s f o r purposes of enhancing h i s sentence. State its a r g u e d i n i t s r e s p o n s e , and order, counsel that E l l i o t t ' s were b a r r e d by claims Rule he the circuit court The found i n of i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e 32.2(d) b e c a u s e t h e y c o u l d of have been r a i s e d i n a m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w h i s p l e a s . Rule 32.2(d) provides, that counsel was in pertinent i n e f f e c t i v e must be part, that "[a]ny claim r a i s e d as s o o n as p r a c t i c a b l e , e i t h e r 6 CR-08-1721 a t t r i a l , on d i r e c t a p p e a l , o r i n t h e f i r s t R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . " However, this opportunity Rule 32 petition for Elliott effectiveness. The to record was the challenge from first practicable his trial Elliott's counsel's direct appeal r e f l e c t s t h a t he was s e n t e n c e d on S e p t e m b e r 20, 2007, b u t t h a t new c o u n s e l was n o t a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t E l l i o t t until the December 13, 2007, a l m o s t t h r e e months l a t e r , and t h a t r e c o r d was 2008. on a p p e a l A motion n o t c e r t i f i e d as c o m p l e t e until January f o r a new t r i a l must be f i l e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s of s e n t e n c i n g . During the time f o r f i l i n g a motion trial case, i n this counsel. 8, by his trial e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n a postjudgment motion. See, e.g., F l o w e r s v. So. 2d 1382 be represented t o c h a l l e n g e h i s own 672 cannot was expected State, Counsel Elliott f o r a new ( A l a . Crim. these c l a i m s a r e n o t b a r r e d by R u l e these claims were pleaded s a t i s f y the requirements with App. 1995) . T h e r e f o r e , 32.2(d). sufficient In addition, specificity i n R u l e 32.3 and R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) ; were n o t r e f u t e d by t h e S t a t e : a n d , i f t r u e , t h e y may Elliott to relief. o p p o r t u n i t y t o prove Therefore, Elliott these claims. 7 i s entitled to they entitle to an CR-08-1721 Based circuit court evidence court on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we to allow E l l i o t t remand either conduct depositions. considering issue See R u l e written c l a i m s a n d may g r a n t w h a t e v e r shall opinion, written 32.9(a). findings and be f i l e d shall for hearing or accept interrogatories, After receiving of fact court 56 d a y s include and shall regarding E l l i o t t ' s r e l i e f i t deems n e c e s s a r y . within the The c i r c u i t the evidence presented, the c i r c u i t specific return above. an e v i d e n t i a r y evidence i n t h e form o f a f f i d a v i t s , or case an o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t t o support those claims l i s t e d shall this of the date the c i r c u i t court's Due of this written findings of fact, a t r a n s c r i p t of the evidentiary hearing, i f one i s c o n d u c t e d , a n d a n y o t h e r e v i d e n c e r e c e i v e d o r r e l i e d on by t h e c o u r t i n m a k i n g i t s f i n d i n g s . 4 REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. W i s e , P . J . , a n d W e l c h , Windom, a n d K e l l u m , J J . , c o n c u r . B e c a u s e o f o u r d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h i s c a s e , we p r e t e r m i t discussion of the remaining claims E l l i o t t raises i n h i s b r i e f to t h i s Court. 4 8
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.
