Robert Tucker v. Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/05/2010 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-09-0209 Robert Tucker v. Alabama B o a r d o f Pardons and P a r o l e s Appeal WISE, P r e s i d i n g The of Court Judge. a p p e l l a n t , Robert Tucker, f i l e d certiorari, Without from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-09-639) challenging a petition the revocation of h i s parole. r e q u i r i n g a response b y t h e Alabama Board & P a r o l e s ("the Board"), for a writ o f Pardons the c i r c u i t court summarily dismissed CR-09-0209 the petition verified. Relief R. On C i v . P., raise 23, 2009. that, based charges. on on However, the p e t i t i o n Tucker filed a verification allegations The court This fact appeal that had he f u r t h e r a s s e r t e d dismissed. 2 about denied the released 2007, he to h i s the motion followed. T u c k e r was 15, not to Rule 60(b)(6), A l a . t o add circuit was a "Motion f o r additional October the that pursuant sought December 18, 2006, asserted were he proceedings. September On to 15, 2009, or Order" i n which and revocation parole September of Judgment petition on on M a y 1, 2 0 0 9 , n o t i n g on p a r o l e . the Board been that revoked arrested t h o s e new on He his new charges CR-09-0209 Tucker Rule in argues that the c i r c u i t 60(b)(6) motion. 1 Rule court erred i n denying h i s 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s , part: "(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable N e g l e c t ; Newly Discovered E v i d e n c e ; Fraud, e t c . On motion and upon s u c h terms as a r e j u s t , the c o u r t may r e l i e v e a p a r t y or a p a r t y ' s l e g a l representative from a f i n a l judgment, o r d e r , or p r o c e e d i n g f o r the following reasons: ( 1 ) mistake, inadvertence, s u r p r i s e , or e x c u s a b l e n e g l e c t ; ( 2 ) newly d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e w h i c h b y due d i l i g e n c e c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n d i s c o v e r e d i n t i m e t o move f o r a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated i n t r i n s i c or e x t r i n s i c ) , m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , o r o t h e r m i s c o n d u c t o f an a d v e r s e p a r t y ; (4) the judgment i s v o i d ; (5) the judgment has been s a t i s f i e d , r e l e a s e d , o r d i s c h a r g e d , o r a p r i o r j u d g m e n t upon w h i c h i t i s based has been r e v e r s e d o r o t h e r w i s e v a c a t e d , o r i t i s no l o n g e r e q u i t a b l e t h a t the judgment s h o u l d have p r o s p e c t i v e To t h e e x t e n t T u c k e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g h i s 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 , we n o t e t h a t 1 " [ a ] n a p p e a l f r o m t h e d e n i a l o f a R u l e 60(b) m o t i o n does n o t bring the underlying j u d g m e n t up for review, but p r e s e n t s o n l y the q u e s t i o n of p r o p r i e t y of the judgment denying the Rule 60(b) motion. S a n d e r s v. B l u e C r o s s - B l u e S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a , I n c . , 368 So. 2d 8 ( A l a . 1979) ." B r y a n t v. F i r s t T u s k e g e e Bank, 866 So. 2d 1139, 1143 (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e Full Circle Distribution, LLC, 883 So. 2d 638 ( A l a . 2003) . T h e r e f o r e , any a r g u m e n t a b o u t t h e May 1, 2009, d i s m i s s a l o f the p e t i t i o n i s not p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t . 3 CR-09-0209 a p p l i c a t i o n ; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the o p e r a t i o n of t h e judgment. The m o t i o n s h a l l b e made w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e , a n d f o r r e a s o n s ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) , a n d ( 3 ) n o t more t h a n f o u r ( 4 ) m o n t h s a f t e r t h e j u d g m e n t , o r d e r , o r p r o c e e d i n g was entered or taken. A motion under t h i s s u b d i v i s i o n does n o t a f f e c t the f i n a l i t y of a judgment or suspend i t s o p e r a t i o n . L e a v e t o make t h e m o t i o n n e e d n o t be o b t a i n e d f r o m a n y a p p e l l a t e c o u r t e x c e p t d u r i n g s u c h t i m e as an a p p e a l f r o m t h e j u d g m e n t i s a c t u a l l y pending b e f o r e such c o u r t . I f leave of the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i s o b t a i n e d , t h e m o t i o n s h a l l be d e e m e d t o h a v e b e e n made i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t a s o f the d a t e u p o n w h i c h l e a v e t o make t h e m o t i o n was sought i n the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t . T h i s r u l e does n o t limit t h e power of a court to entertain an independent a c t i o n w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e time and not to exceed t h r e e ( 3 ) y e a r s a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t ( o r s u c h a d d i t i o n a l t i m e as i s g i v e n b y § 6-2-3 a n d § 6-2-8, C o d e o f A l a b a m a 1 9 7 5 ) t o r e l i e v e a p a r t y from a judgment, o r d e r , or p r o c e e d i n g , or t o set a s i d e a j u d g m e n t f o r f r a u d upon t h e c o u r t . W r i t s o f coram n o b i s , coram v o b i s , a u d i t a q u e r e l a , supersedeas, and b i l l s o f r e v i e w and b i l l s i n t h e n a t u r e o f a b i l l o f r e v i e w , a r e a b o l i s h e d , and t h e procedure f o r o b t a i n i n g any r e l i e f from a judgment s h a l l be b y m o t i o n as p r e s c r i b e d i n t h e s e r u l e s o r b y an i n d e p e n d e n t a c t i o n . " With regard to Rule Appeals 60(b) motions, t h e Alabama Court of C i v i l has h e l d : "'A t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o d e n y a m o t i o n , f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., f o r relief from a f i n a l judgment i s itself a final j u d g m e n t t h a t w i l l s u p p o r t an a p p e a l ; h o w e v e r , t h e o n l y m a t t e r r e v i e w a b l e i n s u c h an a p p e a l i s t h e propriety of the denial.' W i l l i a m s v . W i l l i a m s , 910 So. 2 d 1 2 8 4 , 1 2 8 6 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) . Except f o r motions brought pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4), whether a movant has e s t a b l i s h e d grounds f o r r e l i e f under 4 CR-09-0209 Rule 60(b) i s a m a t t e r w i t h i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t . Ex p a r t e W a l - M a r t S t o r e s , I n c . , 725 S o . 2 d 2 7 9 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . On a p p e a l , t h i s c o u r t w i l l r e v e r s e a judgment denying r e l i e f under Rule 60(b) only i f the t r i a l court has exceeded i t s discretion. S e e P r i c e v . C l a y t o n , 18 S o . 3 d 370 (Ala. C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . " Burleson v. Burleson, 19 So. 3d 233, 238 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009). The file record a verified i n this case indicates that Tucker d i d not petition. "All applications f o r mandamus, prohibition, c e r t i o r a r i , or other remedial w r i t of a supervisory n a t u r e s h a l l be commenced b y a p e t i t i o n , v e r i f i e d b y a f f i d a v i t , i n w h i c h t h e f a c t s s h a l l be s t a t e d as b r i e f l y a n d s u c c i n c t l y as t h e c a s e w i l l a d m i t o f § 6-6-640, A l a . Code 1975. "The a p p l i c a t i o n i n c e r t i o r a r i p r o c e e d i n g s i s a pleading w i t h i n statutes r e l a t i n g to v e r i f i c a t i o n of pleadings. I t i s g e n e r a l l y h e l d t h a t i t must be v e r i f i e d , a n d t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n u s u a l l y assumes t h e f o r m o f an a f f i d a v i t . " 14 C.J.S. C e r t i o r a r i § 43 (1991) (footnotes omitted). Tucker d i d not v e r i f y h i s p e t i t i o n his case anything parte was before Ackles, not properly the c i r c u i t 840 f o r a w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i , commenced, and court f o r review. So. 2d 145 Because ( A l a . 2002). there was not See, e.g., Ex Therefore, the c i r c u i t c o u r t s u m m a r i l y d i s m i s s e d t h e p e t i t i o n on May 1, 2009. 5 CR-09-0209 Afterward, 60(b)(6), Tucker Ala. R. filed Civ. a P., verification for his petition. c o r r e c t e d was h i s own error T h e r e f o r e , h i s m o t i o n was and 725 So. 1259 i t as s u c h . 2d 279 i n not v e r i f y i n g See ( A l a . 1998); ( A l a . 1984). f o u r months a f t e r petition was to Rule file his a petition. pursuant e v e n t h o u g h he s t y l e d 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., i t as and Ex p a r t e W a l - M a r t S t o r e s , H i g g i n s v. ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) ; Chambers C o u n t y 2d 861 attempted to i n the nature of a motion a motion pursuant to Rule treat pursuant The m i s t a k e he s o u g h t t o have t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., will motion However, he Douglas, 572 Comm'rs v. W a l k e r , we Inc., So. 459 2d So. f i l e d h i s m o t i o n more t h a n the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment d i s m i s s i n g the entered. Thus, i t a p p e a r s t h a t T u c k e r may have s t y l e d h i s m o t i o n as a m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., i n an a t t e m p t t o a v o i d t h e f o u r - m o n t h limitation t h a t i s a p p l i c a b l e to motions pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), A l a . R. C i v . P. In t h i s r e g a r d , the Alabama Supreme C o u r t held: " C l a u s e ( 6 ) , however, i s m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e of the s p e c i f i c g r o u n d s o f c l a u s e s (1) t h r o u g h ( 5 ) , and a p a r t y may n o t o b t a i n r e l i e f u n d e r c l a u s e (6) i f i t w o u l d have b e e n a v a i l a b l e u n d e r c l a u s e s (1) t h r o u g h ( 5 ) . B e c a u s e c l a u s e (6) o p e r a t e s e x c l u s i v e l y o f t h e s p e c i f i c g r o u n d s l i s t e d i n c l a u s e s (1) t h r o u g h ( 5 ) , 6 has CR-09-0209 t h i s C o u r t has s t a t e d t h a t a p a r t y may n o t e s c a p e t h e f o u r - m o n t h l i m i t a t i o n a p p l i c a b l e t o c l a u s e s (1) t h r o u g h (3) m e r e l y b y c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h e m o t i o n as s e e k i n g r e l i e f under c l a u s e (6). " A l t h o u g h g r o u n d s f o r r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 60(b) (1) generally cannot be valid grounds under Rule 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) , t h i s C o u r t has r e c o g n i z e d an e x c e p t i o n when, i n t h e interest of j u s t i c e , aggravating c i r c u m s t a n c e s may be c o n s i d e r e d s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o t r e a t what w o u l d o t h e r w i s e be a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) m o t i o n as w i t h i n R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) . ... [ T ] h e C o u r t has g e n e r a l l y l i m i t e d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s e x c e p t i o n t o c i r c u m s t a n c e s where t h e d i s m i s s a l was t h e r e s u l t o f m i s t a k e , i n a d v e r t e n c e , o r n e g l e c t of counsel and where, despite a l l diligence e x e r c i s e d t o p r o t e c t h i s own i n t e r e s t s , t h e c l i e n t was unable to reasonably protect his interests b e c a u s e he was m i s l e d a b o u t t h e s t a t u s o r c o n d u c t o f h i s c a s e by h i s c o u n s e l . T h i s e x c e p t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , applies to an extraordinary circumstance not c o n t e m p l a t e d by R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) , f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f p r o t e c t i n g the p u b l i c , v i n d i c a t i n g the judicial p r o c e s s , and p r o m o t i n g t h e p u b l i c ' s c o n f i d e n c e i n the l e g a l system." R.E. Grills, 1994) Inc. (citations v. Davison, 641 So. to Rule months a f t e r the 225, 229-30 (Ala. omitted). T u c k e r f i l e d h i s m o t i o n , w h i c h was, pursuant 2d 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. circuit i n essence, C i v . P., court entered the p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i . a motion more t h a n i t s order four dismissing A l s o , t h e r e c o r d does n o t r e f l e c t t h a t t h i s i s a c a s e i n w h i c h t h e d i s m i s s a l was the result and of mistake, inadvertence, 7 or neglect of counsel CR-09-0209 where, despite interests, a l l diligence Tucker was exercised not able to protect to reasonably h i s own protect h i s i n t e r e s t s b e c a u s e he was m i s l e d a b o u t t h e s t a t u s o r c o n d u c t o f h i s case by h i s c o u n s e l . Therefore, were e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s we do n o t f i n d t h a t t h a t w o u l d have a l l o w e d t h e m o t i o n t o be t r e a t e d as a m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e A l a . R. C i v . P. its discretion circuit court's Accordingly, i n denying there 60(b)(6), the c i r c u i t court d i d not exceed the motion, and we judgment. AFFIRMED. W e l c h , Windom, K e l l u m , a n d M a i n , J J . , c o n c u r . 8 affirm the

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.