James McConico, Jr. v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 0 8 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 1 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, 2010-2011 CR-09-1603 James M c C o n i c o , J r . v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal BURKE, which Court Judge. James denial from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CC94-4685.66) McConico, J r . , appeals o f h i s most r e c e n t R u l e sought r e l i e f from the circuit 3 2 , A l a . R. C r i m . f r o m h i s J u n e 3, 1 9 9 9 , m u r d e r court's P. p e t i t i o n , conviction. CR-09-1603 McConico which has filed have been McConico at filed Court Circuit had Disposition because, petition, The was the the petitions, none of Respondents and McConico also (C. circuit The 1 the 15-9-80-88, June, Escambia Jefferson as a R u l e that Mandatory A l a . Code take [him] to t r i a l 1999 demand about of murder." (5) 1975, on five disposition (C. 32 the S t a t e Uniform 158.) the years of his In the i s i n n o c e n t of this on t h e g r o u n d s that 158.) court denied his p e t i t i o n Rule to the " a v e r s [ t h a t ] he t i m e - b a r r e d by Rule p r e c l u d e d by of § McConico's for 2009. petition didn't until indictment 28, McConico a s s e r t e d Detainers Act, f o r murder as a " W r i t o f H a b e a s subsequently treated provisions of murder." charge was on O c t o b e r transferred i t s return intrastate it of "[t]he indictment from County In that p e t i t i o n , violated 32 the present p e t i t i o n C o u r t , w h e r e i t was petition. s i x Rule successful. Corpus" i n Escambia Circuit least 3 2 . 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. 3 2 . 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) because Crim. the P.; issues that i t raised I n h i s b r i e f , M c C o n i c o s t a t e s t h a t he f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t of habeas corpus i n the Barbour C i r c u i t C o u r t t h a t i s n o t a p a r t o f t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l . ( M c C o n i c o ' s b r i e f , a t 4.) He f i l e d m o t i o n s t o s u p p l e m e n t t h e r e c o r d w i t h t h e circuit c o u r t and w i t h t h i s C o u r t , b o t h o f w h i c h were d e n i e d . 1 2 CR-09-1603 could have been b u t were not r a i s e d at t r i a l ; and t h a t the under Rule 32.2(b). (C. ruling on a p e t i t i o n was p r e c l u d e d as s u c c e s s i v e 5-6.) affirm a circuit This Court postconviction reason. may petition Lee v. S t a t e , i f the court's ruling i s correct 44 S o . 3 d 1 1 4 5 , 1 1 4 9 f o r any (Ala. Crim. App. 2009). Rule 32.2(b) states that courts s h a l l not grant relief on successive p e t i t i o n s t h a t r a i s e t h e same o r s i m i l a r g r o u n d s on behalf of t h e same current R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n of these claims petitioner. by McConico raised on t h e e x a c t claims t h a t were b e f o r e at 11.) under i s not successive [raised raised Therefore, McConico i n the current i n h i s seventh Rule set of facts that the t r i a l he c o n t e n d s the second prong of Rule because " [ n ] e i t h e r 32 P e t i t i o n are the basis have which brief, claims states: "A s u c c e s s i v e p e t i t i o n on d i f f e r e n t g r o u n d s s h a l l b e denied unless (1) the p e t i t i o n e r i s e n t i t l e d to relief on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e c o u r t was without jurisdiction to render a judgment o r t o impose s e n t e n c e o r ( 2 ) t h e p e t i t i o n e r shows b o t h t h a t g o o d c a u s e e x i s t s w h y t h e new g r o u n d o r g r o u n d s w e r e n o t known o r c o u l d n o t have b e e n a s c e r t a i n e d through reasonable d i l i g e n c e when t h e f i r s t petition was h e a r d and t h a t f a i l u r e t o e n t e r t a i n t h e p e t i t i o n would r e s u l t i n a miscarriage of j u s t i c e . " 3 been of these (McConico's h i s present 32.2(b), that h i s petition] presently court." that argues fall CR-09-1603 McConico App. cites 1990), precluded prior Blount for as the v. on 572 So. the because merits 2d his proposition that successive judgment State, petition there i n the then i t w o u l d be have a d j u d i c a t e d t h e m on So. (Ala. Crim. 2d claim 869, 875 in a petition petition (i.e., 32.2(b)), the inapplicable, time.") the i s new merits. App. and evidence record on claim falls In W h i t t , this f o r the See not w e n t on v. a previous court State, So. 2d at 876. 4 to 827 particular raised in a second p a r t previous of to r a i s e d f o r the state: "Blount i s hereby o v e r r u l e d to the e x t e n t t h a t i t states that a subsequent petition on different grounds i s not s u c c e s s i v e u n l e s s a p r i o r petition was decided on i t s m e r i t s . We now i n t e r p r e t Rule 3 2 . 2 ( b ) as f e d e r a l c o u r t s i n t e r p r e t h a b e a s c o r p u s petitions t o mean t h a t new claims i n subsequent p e t i t i o n s a r e b a r r e d as b e i n g s u c c e s s i v e u n l e s s 'the p e t i t i o n e r s h o w s b o t h t h a t g o o d c a u s e e x i s t s why the new g r o u n d or g r o u n d s were not known o r c o u l d not have been a s c e r t a i n e d t h r o u g h r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e when t h e f i r s t p e t i t i o n was h e a r d , a n d t h a t f a i l u r e to entertain the petition will result in a miscarriage of j u s t i c e . ' Rule 32.2(b), Ala. R. Crim. P." 827 a Rule requirement i s obviously claim i s being Court trial Whitt under the 'decided-on-the-merits' because the raised in of be appeal. 2001)("[W]here was Crim. cannot no impossible the (Ala. is However, i f McConico's c l a i m s were not petitions, 498 first CR-09-1603 McConico has f a i l e d t o show that good t h e s e new g r o u n d s w e r e n o t k n o w n o r c o u l d when he filed Additionally, Uniform Springer, claims with alleged of he was to Rule Additionally, McConico Disposition being See Ex D i s p o s i t i o n of i s void). held under issues State, 666 citations The assertion So. 2d 91, does Detainers t o meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s not and argued 93 that the 32.2(b). of Detainers not l i s t e d parte an i n t e r s t a t e mention the Uniform Act i n h i s brief. ... a r e d e e m e d b y u s t o be a b a n d o n e d . review to McConico C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t " [ A ] l l e g a t i o n s ... n o t e x p r e s s l y ... a p p e a l The applies ( A l a . 19 9 2 ) ( h o l d i n g he h a s f a i l e d the exceptions petitions. Act not i n t r a s t a t e detainers. Therefore, Mandatory six Detainers intrastate prisoners that why are not j u r i s d i c t i o n a l . of the Uniform Mandatory dealing exists n o t have been known previous 619 S o . 2 d 1 2 6 7 , 1 2 6 9 detainer. for his Disposition detainers, provisions never of McConico's Mandatory interstate Act any cause in brief." ( A l a . Crim. App. This a r g u e d on We w i l l Brownlee not v. 1 99 5)(internal omitted). only other that he ground r a i s e d i n h i s p e t i t i o n i s the bare i s innocent his 5 of murder. In brief, CR-09-1603 McConico claims Sciences falsified trial. He circuit [sic] the DNA claims to Alabama evidence have t h e DNA [test] that discovered requirements as i n 1995 this could evidence, of Rule a petitioner and Forensic introduced at h i s medical be obtained texts the (McConico's considered McConico has 3 2 . 1 ( e ) , A l a . R. must was of to " t h e ADFS c o u l d n ' t h a v e i n McConico's t r i a l . " Inasmuch Department submitted court that proved that presented that that perform results they brief, a at 11.) claim of newly to meet failed Crim. P., which show: " ( 2 ) The f a c t s a r e n o t f a c t s t h a t were k n o w n ; "(3) The facts impeachment e v i d e n c e ; do merely not cumulative merely amount to to "(4) I f t h e f a c t s had been known a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l or of s e n t e n c i n g , the r e s u l t p r o b a b l y would have been d i f f e r e n t ; and " ( 5 ) The f a c t s e s t a b l i s h t h a t p e t i t i o n e r i s innocent of the crime f o r which petitioner was c o n v i c t e d or s h o u l d not have r e c e i v e d the sentence the p e t i t i o n e r r e c e i v e d . " 6 the states "(1) The f a c t s r e l i e d upon were n o t known b y p e t i t i o n e r or p e t i t i o n e r ' s counsel at the time of t r i a l or sentencing or i n time to f i l e a p o s t - t r i a l motion pursuant to Rule 24, or i n time t o be i n c l u d e d i n any p r e v i o u s c o l l a t e r a l p r o c e e d i n g and c o u l d n o t have been d i s c o v e r e d by any o f t h o s e t i m e s through the e x e r c i s e of reasonable d i l i g e n c e ; other the CR-09-1603 Accordingly, circuit it court could held, argument precluded have been, but Rule to that 32.7(d), dismiss the was A l a . R. petition petition i s not fails law exists this rule and that no have particularly no or court that i s precluded, served claims of by any are concerning of fact to r e l i e f or or under further court did petition. petitioners petitions here: "I believe that allowing [McConico] to file multiple petitions for postconviction relief in which h i s claims are e i t h e r p r e c l u d e d or without merit wastes scarce j u d i c i a l resources. Therefore, 1 would encourage the c i r c u i t court to consider a d o p t i n g s a n c t i o n s l i k e t h o s e p r o p o s e d i n P e o p l e s v. S t a t e , 531 S o . 2 d 323 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) , a n d P r o c u p v . S t r i c k l a n d , 792 F . 2 d 10 69 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 6 ) , t o p r e v e n t f u t u r e f r i v o l o u s l i t i g a t i o n on t h e p a r t o f [ M c C o n i c o ] and o t h e r s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d i n m a t e s . See Ex p a r t e T h o m p s o n , 38 So. 3d 119 (Ala. Crim. App. 2 00 9)." 7 the precluded, the c i r c u i t number the because trial determines i n d i s m i s s i n g McConico's exorbitant applicable the the p e t i t i o n e r writing as trial. material issue a p p r o p r i a t e , and Judge Kellum's an court specific, that and, 32.2(a)(3), permits McConico's i t s discretion filed P., p u r p o s e w o u l d be Because Moreover, who or merit r a i s e d at Crim. sufficiently s u m m a r y d i s p o s i t i o n was abuse not, which would e n t i t l e proceedings." not under Rule " [ i ] f the state a claim, to i s without is CR-09-1603 Bennett v. State, , [Ms. (Ala. C R - 1 0 - 0 4 9 8 , May Crim. App. 27, 2011] 2 010)(Kellum, So. J., 3d concurring specially). In 2009), be Ex this parte court i m p o s e d by Thompson, 38 examined the a court So. 3d 119 possible when d e a l i n g w i t h u s e d t h e j u d i c i a l s y s t e m i n an a b u s i v e and (Ala. sanctions Crim. that could who have petitioners unproductive by b o m b a r d i n g t h e c o u r t s w i t h a b a r r a g e of r e p e t i t i v e manner filings: " M o r e o v e r , i n P e o p l e s v . S t a t e , 531 So. 2d 323 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1988), t h i s Court, quoting the United States Court of A p p e a l s f o r the Eleventh Circuit i n P r o c u p v. Strickland, 7 92 F.2d 10 69, 1072-73 (11th C i r . 1 9 8 6 ) , c i t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l the s a n c t i o n s a c o u r t may l e g a l l y i m p o s e when f a c e d w i t h l i t i g i o u s a n d p r o l i f i c p r o se l i t i g a n t s : "'Courts h a v e an " i n h e r e n t p o w e r ... to regulate the activities of abusive l i t i g a n t s by i m p o s i n g c a r e f u l l y tailored restrictions under the appropriate c i r c u m s t a n c e s . " C o t n e r v . H o p k i n s , 795 F.2d 900 , 902 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1 98 6 ) . W h i l e those c o n d i t i o n s may be " o n e r o u s , " t h e y "cannot be so b u r d e n s o m e , h o w e v e r , as t o d e n y a l i t i g a n t m e a n i n g f u l access to the c o u r t s . " C o t n e r , 795 F . 2 d a t 902. "'"In devising methods to attain the objective of c u r t a i l i n g the a c t i v i t y of such a prisoner, however, courts must carefully observe the f i n e line between l e g i t i m a t e r e s t r a i n t s and an i m p e r m i s s i b l e r e s t r i c t i o n on a 8 App. CR-09-1603 prisoner's constitutional right of access to the c o u r t s . V a r i o u s c o u r t s have e m p l o y e d and a p p r o v e d a v a r i e t y of i n j u n c t i v e d e v i c e s . "'"As t o p r i s o n e r s who b r i n g frequent or r e p e t i t i o u s claims, courts have: "'"-enjoined prisoner litigants from r e l i t i g a t i n g s p e c i f i c claims o r c l a i m s a r i s i n g f r o m t h e same set of f a c t u a l circumstances; "'"-required litigants to accompany a l l future pleadings with affidavits certifying that the claims being raised are novel, s u b j e c t to contempt for false swearing; "'"-directed the litigant to attach to future complaints a list of a l l cases previously filed involving the same, similar, or related cause of a c t i o n , a n d t o s e n d an e x t r a c o p y of each p l e a d i n g f i l e d to the law c l e r k of the c h i e f judge of the district; " ' " - d i r e c t e d the l i t i g a n t leave of court before p l e a d i n g s i n a n y new or lawsuit; to seek filing pending "'"-permitted abusive prisoner litigants to file in forma pauperis only claims alleging actual or threatened physical h a r m ; and r e q u i r i n g payment o f a 9 CR-09-1603 filing fee to b r i n g other claims; " ' " - l i m i t e d t h e number o f f i l i n g s by a p a r t i c u l a r i n m a t e ; and "'"-entere prohibiting from a c t i n g jailhouse inmates. d i n j u n c t i o n s the abusive p r i s o n e r as a w r i t w r i t e r o r lawyer for other "'"We do not here intend to indicate how this Court would treat any of the above i n j u n c t i o n s i n a p a r t i c u l a r case, b u t c i t e t h e m as e x a m p l e s o f how other courts have handled the problem. Other r e s t r i c t i o n s which m i g h t be c o n s i d e r e d by a c o u r t attempting to deal with the p r o b l e m s c r e a t e d by a litigant s u c h as [ M c C o n i c o ] i n c l u d e : " ' " - l i m i t a t i o n of the pages to a c o m p l a i n t pleadings; number o f and other " ' " - r e q u i r i n g a p l a i n t i f f to f i l e an a f f i d a v i t s e t t i n g f o r t h w h a t a t t e m p t s he h a s made t o o b t a i n an a t t o r n e y to represent him; "'"-limitation of further pleadings without order of court, after the complaint has been filed. "'"This l i s t i s intended to be n e i t h e r e x h a u s t i v e nor limiting. As new ideas develop and old devices prove ineffective, the judiciary must respond with 10 CR-09-1603 imaginative new techniques designed to p r o t e c t the court access of a l l l i t i g a n t s . " Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1072-73 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1986).' "531 Ex So.2d at Thompson, parte Jeffrey, Courts: 326-27." 38 Restricting The Three R e f o r m A c t and 1099, 1141 petitioners, at Prisoners' Strikes 124-25. Equal Provision of See Access the Substantive Equal Protection, can and such a s M c C o n i c o , who the also to Randal the Prison S. Federal Litigation 49 B u f f a l o L.Rev. the should impose use such sanctions the j u d i c i a l upon system to time. For court 3d (2001). Courts pass So. i s due foregoing reasons, t o be the judgment of the circuit affirmed. AFFIRMED. W e l c h , P . J . , and Windom, K e l l u m , and J o i n e r , J J . , c o n c u r . 11

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.