Jackie McLeod v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/02/2012 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, 2012-2013 CR-11-0860 J a c k i e McLeod v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Houston C i r c u i t Court (CC-89-68.12; CC-89-69.12; CC-89-70.12; CC-89-71.12) WINDOM, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . Jackie dismissal McLeod a p p e a l s of h i s p e t i t i o n from t h e c i r c u i t f o r postconviction p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 3 2 , A l a . R. C r i m . his May 1989 convictions court's summary relief filed P., i n w h i c h he a t t a c k e d f o r four counts of unlawful CR-11-0860 d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e , s e e § 13A-12-211, A l a . Code 1975, and h i s r e s u l t i n g c o n s e c u t i v e prison f o r each conviction. a f f i r m e d McLeod's On A u g u s t 3, ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 0 ) . t h i s Court issued a c e r t i f i c a t e On February 1990, t h i s c o n v i c t i o n s and s e n t e n c e s . S t a t e , 581 So. 2d 1144 1990, sentences of l i f e i n 3, 2012, McLeod See McLeod v. On O c t o b e r 30, of judgment. filed a pleading "Motion to Vacate Judgment R e n d e r e d on May 16, 1989 to o f Alabama R u l e s Rule 60(b)(6) Court of C i v i l M o t i o n f o r an E v i d e n t i a r y H e a r i n g on M o t i o n . " styled Pursuant Procedure; and In h i s motion, McLeod a l l e g e d t h a t he was d e n i e d a f a i r t r i a l i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e S i x t h Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n b e c a u s e : 1) J u r o r N.M. find McLeod g u i l t y ; 2) t h e S t a t e trial N.M. 3) was i n f l u e n c e d by h e r s o n , a n a r c o t i c s a g e n t , t o court failed to d i s c l o s e to the and t o McLeod t h a t i t was aware J u r o r s J.H. and h a d f a i l e d t o d i s c l o s e i n f o r m a t i o n d u r i n g v o i r d i r e ; and the empaneled j u r o r s information disclose during voir to the t r i a l intentionally dire, court and t h a t failed to disclose the State failed and t o McLeod t h a t i t was t h a t the j u r o r s had f a i l e d t o d i s c l o s e i n f o r m a t i o n d u r i n g 2 to aware voir CR-11-0860 dire. On 1 February affording the 23, State 2012, an the c i r c u i t opportunity without respond, to court, treated McLeod's p l e a d i n g as a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n and d i s m i s s e d i t . circuit On c o u r t d i d n o t s t a t e any r e a s o n s f o r i t s d i s m i s s a l . appeal, McLeod reasserts h o w e v e r , has n o t r e a s s e r t e d c l a i m that claim. App. The 1995). claims (1) and (2). 2 He, (3) and t h u s has a b a n d o n e d B r o w n l e e v. S t a t e , 666 So. 2d 91, 93 ( A l a . C r i m . Further, issues f o r the f i r s t he has i m p r o p e r l y t i m e on a p p e a l , r a i s e d a number o f and t h o s e issues are not p r o p e r l y before t h i s Court. Chambers v. S t a t e , 884 So. 2d 15, 19 Thus, whether the c i r c u i t court (1) a n d issue ( A l a . Crim. correctly dismissed properly before In App. 2 0 0 3 ) . this claims (2) i s t h i s only Court. i t s b r i e f on a p p e a l , the State a s s e r t s , f o r the f i r s t time, that the c i r c u i t court p r o p e r l y dismissed claims 1 claim Claims (1) and (2) r e l a t e t o s p e c i f i c (3) r e l a t e s t o a l l t h e j u r o r s . jurors, (1) and whereas T h e c i r c u i t c o u r t p r o p e r l y t r e a t e d McLeod's f i l i n g as a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . S t a t e v. Murphy, 1 So. 3d 1084, 1087 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2008) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a c o u r t must t r e a t a f i l i n g a c c o r d i n g t o i t s s u b s t a n c e and n o t i t s s t y l e ) . T h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n i s a t l e a s t McLeod's f i f t h p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n c h a l l e n g i n g h i s May 1989 c o n v i c t i o n s f o r u n l a w f u l d i s t r i b u t i o n of a c o n t r o l l e d substance. See McLeod v. S t a t e (Ms. CR-090 8 8 4 ) , 84 So. 3d 1021 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2010) ( t a b l e ) . 2 3 CR-11-0860 (2) b e c a u s e t h o s e c l a i m s were p r o c e d u r a l l y b a r r e d u n d e r R u l e s 3 2 . 2 ( b ) and 3 2 . 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P. The 3 S t a t e d i d n o t have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o , and t h u s d i d n o t , a s s e r t t h e s e p r o c e d u r a l bars in the determine circuit whether the court. Therefore, application of this those Court bars must has been waived. The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t has held that the p r o c e d u r a l b a r s c o n t a i n e d i n R u l e s 3 2 . 2 ( a ) and 3 2 . 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., do n o t i m p l i c a t e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e a c h t h e m e r i t s of a p e t i t i o n e r ' s c l a i m ; i n s t e a d , they are defenses court. that will be waived i f not See Ex p a r t e C l e m o n s , 55 So. 3d 348, Ex p a r t e Ward, 46 So. 3d 888, v. 494, State, 50 So. 3d 896 496 n. ( i m p l i c i t l y h o l d i n g that Rule i n the 354 1 circuit ( A l a . 2007); ( A l a . 2007). See ( A l a . Crim. 3 2 . 2 ( b ) , A l a . R. not a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l bar t o r e l i e f ) . ... raised affirmative also App. Fox 2007) C r i m . P., is However, a " ' [ w ] a i v e r i s t h e v o l u n t a r y s u r r e n d e r o r r e l i n q u i s h m e n t o f some known r i g h t , b e n e f i t , or advantage,'" S t e w a r t v. B r a d l e y , 15 So. 3d T h i s C o u r t i s not a p p l y i n g p r o c e d u r a l b a r s sua s p o n t e . B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 1560 ( 9 t h ed. 2009) ( d e f i n i n g "sua s p o n t e " as a c t i n g " [ w ] i t h o u t p r o m p t i n g o r s u g g e s t i o n ; on i t s own m o t i o n " ) . 3 4 CR-11-0860 533, So. 543 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 139, 141 2008) ( A l a . C i v . App. Montgomery v. Weldon , 280 and "'"will Am. & Eng. 61, 66 ( q u o t i n g W a t e r s v. T a y l o r , 1988), c i t i n g i n t u r n C i t y A l a . 463, p. 1105.'" ( A l a . 2011) (quoting Isom v. 543, 545 evidenced an unequivocal by act...."'" Id. State (1920)). i s not given 32 p e t i t i o n b e f o r e the State has affirmative not bars. by will not be to deemed Instead, a waiver or opportunity v. State, a] decisive circumstances to respond to dismissed, to waive 5 of a] the State application A l a . R. opportunity to r a i s e (same). or ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t the 32.2, So. its 1167, the 989 a 2d waived i n Rule 157, "'"must be application 2007) have t h e 2007) Ala. [statement t h e t r i a l c o u r t ) ; D a v e n p o r t v. S t a t e , 987 App. 205 unequivocal have contained S t a t e d i d not Crim. 3d [ i t s intent I d . ; c f . A.G. App. (Ala. I n c . , 67 So. not waived the i t has ( A l a . Crim. bar an an n.6 the (1967)), 29 the p e t i t i o n i s summarily 1180, procedural 110 of " Johnson, [statement "evidenced defenses] a c t , " and procedural 2d Thus, t h i s C o u r t h o l d s t h a t i n Rule decisive So. Ex p a r t e T e x t r o n , 159-60, 87 So. when t h e 195 n o t be i m p l i e d f r o m s l i g h t c i r c u m s t a n c e s Law, 527 Crim. of a P., i f t h a t bar in So. 2d 652, 655, n.4 CR-11-0860 This Court's conclusion Supreme C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g s (Ala. In i s buttressed i n Ex p a r t e 2 0 1 0 ) , a n d Ex p a r t e C o l l i e r , Ex p a r t e Collins, by Collins, the Alabama 84 So. 3d 48 64 So. 3d 1045 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) . 84 So. 3d a t 53, t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t an i n m a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o v e r i f y h i s p e t i t i o n f o r a writ o f habeas defect that w i l l c i r c u i t court. corpus was a nonjurisdictional, pleading be w a i v e d b y t h e S t a t e i f n o t r a i s e d i n t h e I n Ex p a r t e C o l l i e r , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t reaffirmed i t s holding that the " f a i l u r e to v e r i f y a p e t i t i o n for a writ o f habeas pleading] that circuit court. clearly the State waive [ i n an inmate's i f not r a i s e d I t , however, i n the explained n o t be deemed t o have w a i v e d t h a t d e f e n s e d i d n o t have the opportunity [ o r defense] i n the t r i a l court." to raise that I d . To s u p p o r t i t s c o n c l u s i o n , Supreme C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d an i s s u e [raise] defect c a n be w a i v e d " defense i n the c i r c u i t court. the Alabama is a 64 So. 3d a t 1050. that the State w i l l if corpus ... Id. that the "State i t never had a cannot chance t o Thus, when t h e S t a t e does n o t have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e s p o n d t o an i n m a t e ' s p l e a d i n g i n the circuit court, i twill n o t be deemed t o have w a i v e d any 6 CR-11-0860 defenses i f those opportunity, Here, petition i . e . , i n i t s b r i e f on the circuit before therefore, court the "State the State ... procedural bars] c a n n o t w a i v e an to defenses are a s s e r t e d at the S t a t e ' s an n e v e r had [or defense] Id. Rule to a chance t o ... 1051. McLeod's opportunity i n the t r i a l c o u r t . " issue Id. at dismissed had A.G., 989 n.4. So. The 2d a t 1180, State has f o r the f i r s t n.6; [raise Because the i t n e v e r had asserted p r o c e d u r a l l y b a r r e d under Rules Crim. P.; therefore, the a chance (1) and j u r o r m i s c o n d u c t and are not Jenkins , v. and [Ms. are bars therefore i n R u l e 32.2, CR-08-0490, Aug. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 578 2 0 1 1 ) ; G r e e n v. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1991). 7 Further, are Ala. R. be applies. relating Those subject A l a . R. 26, 655, dismissal will p r o s e c u t o r i a l misconduct. contained State, procedural Cf. 2d a t 32.2(c), ( 2 ) , McLeod r a i s e d c l a i m s jurisdictional procedural bars court's may claims McLeod's 3 2 . 2 ( b ) and circuit a f f i r m e d i f e i t h e r of those In claims that So. the "State t i m e on a p p e a l . D a v e n p o r t , 987 32 respond; [ r a i s e ] i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t , " i d . , i t has n o t w a i v e d and a s s e r t the p r o c e d u r a l bars 576, appeal. first to claims to the C r i m . P. See 2011] S t a t e , 591 So. 3d So. 2d McLeod f i l e d his CR-11-0860 R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n w e l l a f t e r t h e Rule 32.2(c), McLeod's Ala. claims R. are Crim. P., had procedurally c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i s due Accordingly, time l i m i t a t i o n contained t o be the expired. barred, in Therefore, and the circuit affirmed. judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. Burke, J . , concurs. opinion. Welch, J., J o i n e r , J . , concurs s p e c i a l l y , concurs Kellum, J . , concurs i n the JOINER, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g in the result, think the do not v. S t a t e , 989 I write specially to note t h a t , although extraordinary-circumstances t h i s Court discussed 3d 348 so and opinion So. 2d 1167 the h o l d i n g analysis Welch I case. ( A l a . C r i m . App. i n Ex p a r t e (Ala. 2007), t h a t absent " e x t r a o r d i n a r y 8 Judge I i s an e x c e l l e n t a p p r o a c h , think i t i s necessary i n t h i s I n A.G. opinion. specially. basis f o r doing proposes i n h i s separate with result. I f u l l y concur w i t h the main o p i n i o n . t o e x p l a i n my with 2007), C l e m o n s , 55 So. circumstances" CR-11-0860 t h i s Court c o u l d not to a petitioner's stated i n sua sponte apply claim. 989 So. a ground of p r e c l u s i o n 2d at 1179. This Court A.G.: "The o p i n i o n i n Ex p a r t e Clemons a p p e a r s t o be g r o u n d e d i n d u e - p r o c e s s p r i n c i p l e s . The C o u r t n o t e d i n Ex p a r t e Clemons t h a t R u l e 32.3 p l a c e s t h e b u r d e n on t h e S t a t e t o p l e a d any g r o u n d o f p r e c l u s i o n b u t t h e n p l a c e s t h e b u r d e n on t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o d i s p r o v e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f any p r e c l u s i o n g r o u n d a s s e r t e d by t h e S t a t e . Thus, f o r a p e t i t i o n e r t o s a t i s f y h i s b u r d e n o f d i s p r o v i n g a p r e c l u s i o n g r o u n d a s s e r t e d by t h e S t a t e , due p r o c e s s r e q u i r e s t h a t a p e t i t i o n e r be given n o t i c e of t h a t p r e c l u s i o n ground." 989 So. 2d a t 1179. As the main o p i n i o n c o n c l u d e s , t o have w a i v e d t h e the S t a t e c a n n o t be said grounds of p r e c l u s i o n because i t d i d not have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o a s s e r t them i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t . The f i r s t o p p o r t u n i t y t h e S t a t e had t o a s s e r t t h o s e g r o u n d s was in i t s b r i e f to t h i s Court, t o do so. McLeod was and the State took that g i v e n n o t i c e of the p r e c l u s i o n grounds a s s e r t e d by t h e S t a t e i n i t s b r i e f on a p p e a l . Ala. R. App. P. opportunity (requiring b r i e f on e a c h p a r t y ) . a party to serve See R u l e a copy F u r t h e r , R u l e 2 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. 31(b), of i t s App. P., a f f o r d e d McLeod t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o f i l e a r e p l y i n r e s p o n s e t o the State's assertion McCleod d i d not of the preclusionary grounds, a v a i l h i m s e l f of t h a t o p p o r t u n i t y . 9 In but fact, CR-11-0860 McLeod s e n t two its brief, addressed documents t o t h i s C o u r t but the procedurally neither State's of additional to the 32.9, 633 and court that McLeod's and neither claims for Crim. P. an See State's a s s e r t i o n of i f that the matter i f necessary, ( A l a . 2010). are response had the warranted c o u l d have b e e n remanded fact-finding as to that evidentiary hearing. issue, See Rule a l s o Ex p a r t e Coleman, 71 So. 356 there the "need n o t r e a c h t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e e a s e w i t h w h i c h the that under C f ^ Ex p a r t e C l e m o n s , 55 So. 3d 3d a t (stating Court reply responded to the fact-finding, A l a . R. 627, timely assertion preclusion circuit including, a filed barred. I f McLeod had grounds was a f t e r the S t a t e the particular circumstances i s s u e [ o f w h e t h e r t o a p p l y a p r o c e d u r a l b a r sua s p o n t e ] c o u l d be r e s o l v e d at the a p p e l l a t e l e v e l w i t h o u t further fact-finding"). Because the its the n e c e s s i t y f o r first S t a t e a s s e r t e d the grounds of p r e c l u s i o n at o p p o r t u n i t y t o do so and b e c a u s e McLeod had notice and an o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e s p o n d t o t h e S t a t e ' s a s s e r t i o n o f preclusion necessary grounds but to perform d i d not do so, I do not the think i t i s the 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 a n a l y s i s 10 CR-11-0860 proposed by Judge circumstances, Welch. t h i s Court's consistent with the Under these r e s o l u t i o n of the i n s t a n t case i s due-process p r i n c i p l e s p a r t e Clemons, s u p r a , particular and A.G., identified in Ex supra. WELCH, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e result. I concur i n the r e s u l t reached i n the m a j o r i t y ' s o p i n i o n . I. The S t a t e ' s l e g i t i m a t e l a c k o f o p p o r t u n i t y t o p l e a d p r o c e d u r a l b a r s , and r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t t h e S t a t e d i d n o t w a i v e t h e b a r , does n o t r e l i e v e t h i s C o u r t o f the obligation to conduct the extraordinary c i r c u m s t a n c e a n a l y s i s m a n d a t e d by Ex p a r t e Clemons b e f o r e sua s p o n t e a p p l y i n g p r o c e d u r a l b a r s . I believe that the majority has failed p l a i n mandate o f Ex p a r t e C l e m o n s , 55 So. I disagree with the majority's to 3d 348 conclusion follow the ( A l a . 2007) . t h a t because the S t a t e had no o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e s p o n d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t , i t d i d not waive procedural f o r the the applicable bars first in this time a f f i r m a t i v e defenses, case, on a p p e a l and and 11 can a s s e r t those which are defenses t h a t , f o r t h a t reason, this CR-11-0860 C o u r t may sua s p o n t e 4 d e n i a l o f t h e R u l e 32 a p p l y them t o a f f i r m t h e c i r c u i t court's petition. The m a j o r i t y ' s a n a l y s i s d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c t s t h e explicit h o l d i n g i n Ex p a r t e Clemons t h a t t h e sua s p o n t e a p p l i c a t i o n o f p r o c e d u r a l b a r s by an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i s a l l o w e d o n l y i n c a s e s in which the appellate court "extraordinary circumstances." 354-55. 2d 652 finds the existence Ex p a r t e C l e m o n s , 55 So. I a l s o c o n c l u d e t h a t i n D a v e n p o r t v. ( A l a . C r i m . App. State, 2 0 0 7 ) , r e l i e d upon by the should be overruled. 5 Therefore, t h a t f o l l o w , I r e s p e c t f u l l y must d i s a g r e e of the 3d a t 987 So. majority, t h i s C o u r t m i s a p p l i e d t h e h o l d i n g o f Ex p a r t e Clemons and Davenport of f o r the that reasons w i t h the r a t i o n a l e majority. A. Procedural posture of the case S u a s p o n t e i s a t e r m o f a r t . As I w i l l d i s c u s s l a t e r t h i s o p i n i o n , i n Ex p a r t e C l e m o n s , t h e t e r m sua s p o n t e u s e d t o mean t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t c a n n o t , i n t h e a b s e n c e e x t r a o r d i n a r y circumstances, apply a p r o c e d u r a l bar t h a t n o t r a i s e d by t h e S t a t e i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t . 4 in was of was I c o n c u r r e d i n D a v e n p o r t b u t have now d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e r a t i o n a l e u s e d i n t h a t c a s e was e r r o n e o u s . See W a l k e r v. S t a t e , 62 So. 3d 601, 603 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 9 ) ( W e l c h , J . , dissenting). 5 12 CR-11-0860 On February 6, 2012, McLeod filed his petition, c h a l l e n g i n g f o u r May 16, 1989, c o n v i c t i o n s and s e n t e n c e s . The m a j o r i t y c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h e c l a i m s McLeod p u r s u e s on a p p e a l as follows: " I n h i s m o t i o n , McLeod a l l e g e d t h a t he was d e n i e d a f a i r t r i a l i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e S i x t h Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n b e c a u s e : 1) J u r o r N.M. was i n f l u e n c e d by h e r s o n , a n a r c o t i c s a g e n t , t o f i n d McLeod g u i l t y ; [and] 2) t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o d i s c l o s e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t and t o M c L e o d t h a t i t was aware J u r o r s J.H. and N.M. had f a i l e d t o disclose information during voir dire " McLeod v. S t a t e , , [Ms. CR-11-0860, November 2, 2012] ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2012). Without a l l o w i n g a response from the S t a t e , court summarily denied "motion denied" McLeod a p p e a l e d . on So. 3d the c i r c u i t r e l i e f on t h e s e c l a i m s by t h e n o t a t i o n the case-action summary of each case. B o t h c l a i m s a r e , as t h e m a j o r i t y d e t e r m i n e d , n o n j u r i s d i c t i o n a l c l a i m s t h a t a r e u n t i m e l y u n d e r R u l e 32. Rule 32.2(c), A l a . R. C r i m . P. ( h o l d i n g t h a t newly See discovered e v i d e n c e c l a i m s must be r a i s e d w i t h i n s i x months o f d i s c o v e r y 13 CR-11-0860 and McLeod's o t h e r c l a i m s must be the issuance In claims of the c e r t i f i c a t e i t s brief judgment.). a r g u e s t h a t McLeod's under Rules petition and 32.2(b), u n d e r 3 2 . 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. Crim. as P., may raise was not before the State applicable procedural the bars at i t s f i r s t as responded, the majority bars and whether the opportunity. This has State question r a i s e d by t h e S t a t e i n i t s b r i e f . C i t i n g Ex p a r t e C o l l i e r , 64 So. Ex p a r t e C o l l i n s , 84 So. 3d 48 that a Because the c i r c u i t c o u r t summarily d i s m i s s e d c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h e t h r e s h o l d q u e s t i o n as w h e t h e r t h e S t a t e waived the of State untimely f i l e d . the 6 the successive p e t i t i o n , appeal, of years procedurally barred were on r a i s e d w i t h i n two the procedural State bar will so f i r s t opportunity. not long be as 3d 1045 ( A l a . 2010), and ( A l a . 2012), the m a j o r i t y holds charged w i t h the State having does r a i s e waived any them a t the I n t h i s c a s e , t h e f i r s t o p p o r t u n i t y was on appeal. M c L e o d a p p e a l e d h i s c o n v i c t i o n s . McLeod's c o n v i c t i o n s o c c u r r e d b e f o r e R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P. was amended t o change t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d f r o m two y e a r s t o one y e a r . His f i r s t c l a i m u n t i m e l y a l l e g e d t h a t he had n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d j u r o r misconduct. 6 14 CR-11-0860 I a g r e e w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y when i t c i t e s Ex p a r t e 64 So. 3d 1045 ( A l a . 2010) , a n d Ex p a r t e C o l l i n s , (Ala. 2012), to e s t a b l i s h that the State 84 So. 3d 48 d i d not waive the r e l e v a n t a f f i r m a t i v e defenses i n t h i s case. reasons that Collier, However, f o r t h e f o l l o w , I do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t e v e n t h e S t a t e ' s l e g i t i m a t e l a c k o f o p p o r t u n i t y t o p l e a d an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e pretermits the application extraordinary-circumstance The of an Ex parte Clemons analysis. r a t i o n a l e of the majority opinion fails to explain why t h e e x p r e s s r e q u i r e m e n t o f Ex p a r t e C l e m o n s , r e i n f o r c e d i n Ex parte James, 61 So. 3d 352 appellate affirm court may ( A l a . 2009) -- t h a t b e f o r e sua sponte t h e judgment of a trial apply a procedural court, i t must an bar to find that 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 e x i s t t h a t j u s t i f y t h a t a c t i o n -¬ should be through no affirmative analysis ignored fault when of defense Court i t s own, has i n the c i r c u i t also relies A.G. v. S t a t e , this i n part finds failed court. 2007), and Davenport, a case t h a t itself to The on o b i t e r d i c t a , 989 So. 2d 1167, 1180, n.6 d i c t a and t h a t i g n o r e s that the assert an majority's i n particular ( A l a . C r i m . App. i s b a s e d on o b i t e r t h e p l a i n mandate o f Ex p a r t e 15 State, Clemons. CR-11-0860 I w i l l e x p l a i n i n t h i s w r i t i n g that the consideration of whether a w a i v e r o c c u r r e d and t h e cause o f t h e S t a t e ' s to plead an a f f i r m a t i v e defense extraordinary-circumstances blameworthiness affirmative has of defense the should analysis State when assessed court. i s not the only i n an considering for failing i n the c i r c u i t o r has not o c c u r r e d be failure to raise Whether a factor the an waiver this Court s h o u l d c o n s i d e r when d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r t o a p p l y a p r e c l u s i o n a r y b a r s u a s p o n t e on a p p e a l where t h e S t a t e h a d no o p p o r t u n i t y t o a s s e r t an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , B. I n Ex p a r t e as t h e m a j o r i t y h o l d s . The h o l d i n g i n Ex p a r t e Clemons, supra, Clemons the State p r o c e d u r a l bars i n i t s response t o the Rule expressly waived 32, A l a . R. P., p e t i t i o n i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t a n d d u r i n g t h e d i r e c t to this Court. appeal. Court, During without This Court oral arguments prior notice applied the procedural before t h e Alabama to the p e t i t i o n e r , Crim. appeal bars Supreme the asserted: "[T]he procedural bars of Rule 32.2(a) are j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a n d c a n n o t be w a i v e d . Accordingly, the State contended, the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals c o r r e c t l y a p p l i e d those b a r s sua sponte t o Clemons's ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims, 16 on State CR-11-0860 despite the State's f a i l u r e to a s s e r t the procedural bars i n the t r i a l court." Ex p a r t e C l e m o n s , 55 So. 3d a t 352. The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t p r o c e d u r a l were n o t j u r i s d i c t i o n a l in an ordinary case, bars and c o u l d be w a i v e d by t h e S t a t e , and, an appellate court cannot apply sua s p o n t e a p r o c e d u r a l b a r t h a t h a d been e x p r e s s l y w a i v e d by t h e State i n the c i r c u i t court. "The q u e s t i o n b e f o r e us i n t h i s p r o c e e d i n g i s w h e t h e r t h e S t a t e may w a i v e t h e a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e o f t h e p r o c e d u r a l b a r s o f R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( a ) and t h e r e b y e n a b l e t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o e n t e r t a i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g on its merits. II " I f we were t o r e a d R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( a ) as a l i m i t a t i o n upon t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o g r a n t r e l i e f i n i n s t a n c e s where p r e c l u s i o n i s a v a i l a b l e as a d e f e n s e , t h e r e b y e n a b l i n g an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t t o i n v o k e t h e d e f e n s e s u a s p o n t e , we w i l l have c o n s t r u e d a r u l e o f p r o c e d u r e i n a manner c o n t r a r y t o t h e a u t h o r i t y c o n f e r r e d upon t h i s C o u r t b y t h e A l a b a m a Constitution. T h i s we s i m p l y c a n n o t do." Ex p a r t e C l e m o n s , 55 So. 3d a t 353-54. Finally, extraordinary apply the Supreme circumstances sua sponte Court also exist, an held appellate that court where may an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e t h a t h a d been w a i v e d by t h e S t a t e i n t h e c i r c u i t court: 17 CR-11-0860 "However, our h o l d i n g t h a t t h e p r o c e d u r a l b a r s i n R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( a ) a r e n o t j u r i s d i c t i o n a l does n o t l e a d t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t can n e v e r a s s e r t them sua s p o n t e . F e d e r a l c o u r t s of appeals h a v e , sua s p o n t e , overcome w a i v e r o f t h e d e f e n s e o f preclusion in postconviction proceedings under extraordinary circumstances." Ex p a r t e Ex C l e m o n s , 55 parte procedural So. Clemons bars by 3d a t 354. dealt with the State in an the express circuit waiver court. A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t l a t e r c l a r i f i e d t h a t t h e o m i s s i o n a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e i n a r e s p o n s e f i l e d by t h e to a waiver. the State defense d i d not to p l e a d e d by an I n Ex plead each James. appellate procedural parte court bar circumstances James, 61 i n the So. circuit 3d State 352 court of the Court finds an a f f i r m a t i v e claim a extraordinary exist. " [ I ] t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t the S t a t e d i d not p l e a d the a f f i r m a t i v e defense of the p r e c l u s i o n a r y grounds of Rule 32 concerning the majority of James's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, thus waiving that a f f i r m a t i v e defense, and that no 'extraordinary circumstances' exist that would j u s t i f y 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 ' sua s p o n t e a p p l i c a t i o n of the p r o c e d u r a l grounds to those of James's i n e f f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e - o f - c o u n s e l c l a i m s as to which the S t a t e d i d not p l e a d the a f f i r m a t i v e 18 that sponte a p p l y i n g that an ( A l a . 2009), A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t r e a f f i r m e d i s p r o h i b i t e d f r o m sua unless The amounted ineffective-assistance-of-counsel The of CR-11-0860 defense. The S t a t e concedes t h a t the Court of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s ' sua sponte a p p l i c a t i o n of the preclusionary grounds of Rule 32 to James's i n e f f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e - o f - c o u n s e l claims conflicts w i t h Clemons and t h a t i t s j u d g m e n t s h o u l d be r e v e r s e d and t h e c a s e remanded f o r t h a t c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r t h e m e r i t s of J a m e s ' s r e m a i n i n g i n e f f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e - o f - c o u n s e l c l a i m s . We a g r e e . As Clemons e s t a b l i s h e s , t h e p r e c l u s i o n a r y g r o u n d s o f R u l e 32 a r e a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s t h a t must be p l e a d e d o r t h e y a r e w a i v e d ; t h e p r e c l u s i o n a r y g r o u n d s do n o t a f f e c t the c o u r t s ' j u r i s d i c t i o n . The S t a t e c o n c e d e s t h a t i t w a i v e d t h e p r e c l u s i o n a r y g r o u n d s by not pleading them as an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e i n the c i r c u i t court. T h e r e f o r e , we r e v e r s e t h e C o u r t o f Cour C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s ' j u d g m e n t and remand t h e c a s e f o r that court to consider the merits of James's remaining i n e f f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e - o f - c o u n s e l claims." 61 So. 3d a t 356. Therefore, the the S t a t e ' s omission to a Supreme C o u r t h e l d i n Ex p a r t e James t h a t o f an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e i n i t s r e s p o n s e petitioner's claim is a waiver of that affirmative d e f e n s e and t h a t Ex p a r t e Clemons p r o h i b i t s an a p p e l l a t e f r o m sua trial court sponte a p p l y i n g t h a t a f f i r m a t i v e defense to a f f i r m a court's extraordinary The dismissal in this stating in procedural a claim in the absence of attempts to distinguish i t s circumstances. majority opinion of apparently case from the footnote 3 that holding i t is bars. 19 i n Ex p a r t e not sua Clemons sponte by applying CR-11-0860 "This Court i s not a p p l y i n g p r o c e d u r a l bars sua s p o n t e . B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 1560 ( 8 t h ed. 2009) ( d e f i n i n g 'sua s p o n t e ' as a c t i n g ' [ w ] i t h o u t p r o m p t i n g o r s u g g e s t i o n ; on i t s own motion.')" So.3d a t The . State did argue in i t s appellate brief c l a i m s c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n are b a r r e d under Rule Ala. the R. Crim. P., s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n . " apply raised or f o r the this first expressly perspicacious Clemons d e m o n s t r a t e s use the Law 3 2 . 2 ( b ) and (c) time i s w h e t h e r an on appeal a p p l i e d below, 5.) However, appellate a procedural without court bar engaging not in an analysis. examination that p. by the of the opinion i n Ex A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t s p o n t e e x a c t l y as Ex p a r t e C l e m o n s , t h e C o u r t i t i s defined i n parte did not Dictionary. In t e r m sua (State's b r i e f , Court extraordinary circumstances A "the as t h e p e t i t i o n i s s u c c e s s i v e and b a r r e d the q u e s t i o n b e f o r e may that Black's equated the a c t i o n of the U n i t e d S t a t e s Court of Appeals f o r the N i n t h C i r c u i t i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Guess, 203 F.3d 1143, 1145-46 (9th C i r . 2000), in t h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t r a i s e d and a r g u e d a p r o c e d u r a l b a r f o r t h e first time procedural on appeal, as the bar. 20 sua sponte application of a CR-11-0860 "However, o u r h o l d i n g t h a t t h e p r o c e d u r a l b a r s i n R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( a ) a r e n o t j u r i s d i c t i o n a l does n o t l e a d t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t can n e v e r a s s e r t them sua s p o n t e . F e d e r a l c o u r t s of appeals h a v e , sua s p o n t e , overcome w a i v e r o f t h e d e f e n s e o f preclusion in postconviction proceedings under extraordinary circumstances. I n U n i t e d S t a t e s v. G u e s s , 203 F.3d 1143, 1145-46 ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) , f o r example, the U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t of A p p e a l s f o r the Ninth C i r c u i t stated: "'However, t h e g o v e r n m e n t f a i l e d i n i t i a l l y to argue the d e f a u l t i s s u e . It first raised Appellant's potential default in i t s response b r i e f to t h i s c o u r t . In U n i t e d S t a t e s v. B a r r o n , 172 F.3d 1153 (9th C i r . 1999) (en b a n c ) , we d e c l a r e d , " [ T h i s c o u r t ] ... w i l l u s u a l l y n o t a l l o w t h e g o v e r n m e n t to r a i s e a p e t i t i o n e r ' s d e f a u l t f o r the f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l , when i t d i d n o t t a k e the opportunity to do so before the d i s t r i c t c o u r t . " 172 F.3d a t 1156. When the government raises a petitioner's d e f a u l t f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l , t h i s c o u r t u s u a l l y f i n d s t h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t has "waived" i t s d e f a u l t defense. Id. Barron t h u s r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t show " e x t r a o r d i n a r y circumstances" which suggest that "justice would be served by o v e r l o o k i n g the government's o m i s s i o n [at the district c o u r t ] " i n order for the government to avoid waiver. Id.' (Emphasis a d d e d . ) " 55 So. 3d a t 354 (emphasis added). Ex p a r t e Clemons deemed t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n of p r o c e d u r a l bars i n Guess t o be 21 "sua s p o n t e " a c t i o n by the CR-11-0860 appellate court, government's even though the the Clemons. extraordinary After bars should court, the had been r a i s e d i n the brief. Even more t e l l i n g with bar be the i s how t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t circumstances State had orally a p p l i e d to a f f i r m the present argued that i n Ex p a r t e Clemons d i d n o t procedural Ex determined that j u s t i f y sua the parte procedural judgment of the A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t p e r f o r m e d an c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n a l y s i s and in circuit extraordinarycircumstances bars: sponte a p p l i c a t i o n of "We a g r e e t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ' s h o u l d not l i g h t l y r a i s e the i s s u e of a defendant's p r o c e d u r a l d e f a u l t sua s p o n t e . ' R o s a r i o v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 164 F.3d a t 733. S u f f i c e i t t o s a y t h a t t h e S t a t e has n o t shown 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 t h a t s u g g e s t t h a t j u s t i c e w o u l d be s e r v e d by o v e r l o o k i n g i t s f a i l u r e to a s s e r t i n the t r i a l c o u r t the a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e o f p r e c l u s i o n . We a r e n o t h e r e d e a l i n g w i t h a p r o c e e d i n g i n which the defendant p l e a d e d g u i l t y , which m i l i t a t e s a g a i n s t concerns w i t h the f i n a l i t y of c r i m i n a l j u d g m e n t s t h a t w o u l d be o t h e r w i s e i m p l i c a t e d in a collateral proceeding. The State's ' b l a m e w o r t h i n e s s ' i s n o t i n s e r i o u s q u e s t i o n h e r e , as i t i s c l e a r t h a t the State i n t e n t i o n a l l y waived the defense. B e c a u s e o f t h e f o r e g o i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s we need not reach the q u e s t i o n of the ease w i t h which t h e i s s u e c o u l d be r e s o l v e d a t t h e a p p e l l a t e l e v e l w i t h o u t the n e c e s s i t y f o r f u r t h e r f a c t - f i n d i n g . " I n summary, t h e p r e c l u s i v e p r o v i s i o n s o f R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( a ) c a n n o t be r e a d as j u r i s d i c t i o n a l . B e c a u s e those p r o c e d u r a l bars are n o n j u r i s d i c t i o n a l , they 22 dealt CR-11-0860 may, as t h e y were h e r e , be w a i v e d . Only i n extraordinary c i r c u m s t a n c e s may such waiver be overcome by an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t a c t i n g s u a s p o n t e . Those c i r c u m s t a n c e s do n o t e x i s t h e r e . We t h e r e f o r 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 A p p e a l s and remand t h i s c a s e f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f C l e m o n s ' s c l a i m of i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of t r i a l counsel." 55 So. 3d a t 355-56. Had t h e C o u r t i n Ex p a r t e Clemons deemed s u a s p o n t e t o be defined only Dictionary, by the definition found i t w o u l d n o t have a p p l i e d in that Black's term Law to describe t h e a c t i o n s t h e C o u r t i t s e l f c o u l d have t a k e n a f t e r t h e S t a t e had argued, i . e . suggested, that procedural bars could be a p p l i e d b y t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t t o a f f i r m t h e d e n i a l o f relief. it A f t e r m a k i n g an 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 a n a l y s i s determined that i t should not sua sponte apply the p r o c e d u r a l b a r s argued by t h e S t a t e . T h e r e f o r e , e v e n i f , as t h e m a j o r i t y a s s e r t s , technically t h e t e r m " s u a s p o n t e " does n o t a p p l y t o a c t i o n b y an a p p e l l a t e court after the application of a procedural bar is first s u g g e s t e d , as t h e S t a t e d i d i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , i . e . , r a i s e d during oral Court i n Ex argument, parte or argued Clemons was 23 i n a brief using a on appeal, the connotation of sua CR-11-0860 sponte which Blacks Law C. not match denotation 2007). A.G. v. State, 989 So. 2d I b e l i e v e t h a t the m a j o r i t y i n A.G. to buttress bar contained have opportunity So. claimed correctly 3d a t to by pleaded Rules circuit Court noted t o be g r o u n d e d App. relies on o b i t e r "the State that will procedural i f the State d i d bar in the i n h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n t h a t t h e in trial 32.2(a)(3) and court A.G. v. that i n due-process claim R. Crim. n o t , r a i s e d and State, 989 So. Rules the "was P., addressed 2d a t 1178. 3 2 . 2 ( a ) (3) claim. t h a t Ex p a r t e principles: 24 the (5), A l a . d i d not u t i l i z e i n A.G. indictment In the c i r c u i t c o u r t , response (5) as g r o u n d s f o r d e n y i n g t h e This opinion Court . and on a p p e a l . " However, t h e and in ( A l a . Crim. 1167 raise b e c a u s e i t c o u l d have b e e n , b u t was at t r i a l term this the a p p l i c a t i o n of a u n d e r l y i n g h i s c o n v i c t i o n was v o i d . precluded decided, i n R u l e 32.2, A l a . R. C r i m . P., the court." A.G. that majority. i t s assertion that n o t be deemed t o have w a i v e d State of Dictionary. months a f t e r Ex p a r t e Clemons was released not the A n a l y s i s o f c a s e s r e l i e d upon by t h e Six dicta does Clemons appeared CR-11-0860 "The o p i n i o n i n Ex p a r t e Clemons a p p e a r s t o be grounded i n due-process p r i n c i p l e s . The C o u r t n o t e d i n Ex p a r t e Clemons t h a t R u l e 3 2 . 3 [ , A l a . R. C r i m . P.,] p l a c e s t h e b u r d e n on t h e S t a t e t o p l e a d any g r o u n d o f p r e c l u s i o n b u t t h e n p l a c e s t h e b u r d e n on t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o d i s p r o v e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f any p r e c l u s i o n g r o u n d a s s e r t e d by t h e S t a t e . Thus, f o r a p e t i t i o n e r to s a t i s f y h i s burden of d i s p r o v i n g a p r e c l u s i o n g r o u n d a s s e r t e d by t h e S t a t e , due p r o c e s s r e q u i r e s t h a t a p e t i t i o n e r be g i v e n n o t i c e o f t h a t p r e c l u s i o n ground." A.G. v. S t a t e , The 989 did 2d a t 1179-80. C o u r t i n A.G. t h a t t h e c l a i m was bars So. set forth afford A.G. h e l d t h a t because the S t a t e d i d p l e a d due t o be d i s m i s s e d b a s e d on t h e p r o c e d u r a l i n Rules an 32.2(a)(3) and opportunity to (5) and rebut the because use p r o c e d u r a l bars to preclude review of h i s claim, court's f a i l u r e to u t i l i z e not p r e s e n t a due-process t h o s e b a r s on a p p e l l a t e is satisfied when t h e bar i n i t s response. of the those circuit t h e b a r s p l e a d e d by t h e S t a t e d i d impediment t o t h i s C o u r t ' s review. circuit utilizing I n o t h e r w o r d s , due State pleads The this an process applicable procedural court's failure to dispose o f t h e p e t i t i o n on t h e S t a t e ' s p l e a d e d g r o u n d s d i d n o t p r e v e n t this Court grounds. from affirming This Court the d e n i a l concluded: 25 of a p e t i t i o n on those CR-11-0860 "Thus, t h e d u e - p r o c e s s c o n c e r n s t h a t were p r e s e n t i n Ex p a r t e Clemons a r e n o t p r e s e n t i n t h i s c a s e , a n d Ex p a r t e Clemons i s n o t c o n t r o l l i n g h e r e . " B e c a u s e due p r o c e s s i s n o t i m p l i c a t e d a n d Ex p a r t e Clemons i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s c a s e , t h i s C o u r t may a p p l y the w e l l - s e t t l e d rule t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may a f f i r m a c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i f t h a t j u d g m e n t i s c o r r e c t f o r any r e a s o n . " "Because A.G.'s indictment claim i s not j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a n d b e c a u s e no d u e - p r o c e s s c o n c e r n s a r e i m p l i c a t e d i n t h i s c a s e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t we may a f f i r m t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f t h i s c l a i m on the ground t h a t i t i s p r e c l u d e d by Rule 32.2(a)(3) and ( 5 ) , e v e n t h o u g h t h a t was n o t t h e r e a s o n s t a t e d by t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t . " A.G. v. S t a t e , 989 So. 2d a t 1180-81. I n t h a t p a r t o f i t s a n a l y s i s , A.G. was c o r r e c t . this Court majority, included note 6 i n A.G., which to a p e t i t i o n . " bar A.G. v . S t a t e acknowledged petitioner i s cited by t h e s t a t i n g that a p e t i t i o n e r i s e n t i t l e d to the notice r e q u i r e d b y due p r o c e s s " o n l y when t h e S t a t e having However, be g i v e n that notice files a response 989 So. 2d a t 1180 n.6. Ex p a r t e Clemons of the assertion required of a After that procedural a n d t h e due p r o c e s s r i g h t t o r e b u t s u c h a p l e a d i n g , s t a t e d i n note 6 t h a t : "We n o t e t h a t t h e Supreme C o u r t e x p r e s s l y recognized i n Ex p a r t e C l e m o n s , [55 So. 3d 348 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) ] , 26 a A.G. CR-11-0860 t h a t R u l e 3 2 . 7 ( d ) s p e c i f i c a l l y ' a u t h o r i z e s sua s p o n t e a c t i o n by' t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t i n a p p l y i n g a p r e c l u s i o n g r o u n d and t h a t , s u b s e q u e n t l y , i n Ex p a r t e Ward, [46 So. 3d 888 ( A l a . 2007)], the Court r e a f f i r m e d the l o n g - s t a n d i n g r u l e t h a t a c i r c u i t c o u r t 'may p r o p e r l y summarily d i s m i s s such a p e t i t i o n without w a i t i n g f o r a response t o the p e t i t i o n from the S t a t e . ' Thus, t h i s n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t i s t r i g g e r e d o n l y when t h e S t a t e f i l e s a response to the p e t i t i o n . " A.G. v. State, 989 So. 2d Because the S t a t e d i d f i l e portion A.G. of and note at 1180 n. 6 (emphasis a r e s p o n s e i n A.G., 6 i s unnecessary i s o b i t e r dictum. to the the added). underlined Court's holding That i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e in because t h e Ex p a r t e Clemons C o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d t h a t i t d i d n o t decide that issue. ("Whether t h e t r i a l of an answer us.") . support The See Ex parte Clemons, 55 So. court's a u t h o r i t y continues omitting opinion a defense i n A.G. is a provided 3d after question no at service not before a n a l y s i s , nor f o r the emphasized p o r t i o n of the f o o t n o t e . 353 This any part o f t h e f o o t n o t e , as a p p l i e d t o an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , i s a l s o directly called into question Liberty National Life I n s u r a n c e Co. Health Services Foundation, explained below by A.G.'s l a t e r q u o t a t i o n P.C., i n more d e t a i l , 27 881 from v. U n i v e r s i t y o f A l a b a m a So. which 2d 1013 holds ( A l a . 2003), that a totally CR-11-0860 omitted affirmative defense which t o a f f i r m a t r i a l The note a l s o will not s u f f i c e as a b a s i s c o u r t judgment d e n y i n g c i t e s Rule 32.7(d), which on relief. states: "(d) Summary d i s p o s i t i o n . I f the court determines t h a t [1] t h e p e t i t i o n i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y s p e c i f i c , o r [2] i s p r e c l u d e d , o r [3] f a i l s t o s t a t e a c l a i m , o r [4] t h a t no m a t e r i a l i s s u e o f f a c t o r l a w e x i s t s which would e n t i t l e t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o r e l i e f under 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 b y any f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e c o u r t may e i t h e r d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n o r g r a n t l e a v e t o f i l e an amended p e t i t i o n , L e a v e t o amend s h a l l be f r e e l y g r a n t e d . Otherwise, the c o u r t s h a l l d i r e c t t h a t t h e p r o c e e d i n g s c o n t i n u e and s e t a d a t e f o r h e a r i n g . " It s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t dismissal is an listed of the four r e a s o n s f o r summary a b o v e , o n l y r e a s o n number 2 -- p r e c l u s i o n affirmative defense. a f f i r m a t i v e defenses. Reasons 1, 3, and 4 a r e n o t Therefore, s t a t i n g that a c i r c u i t may s u m m a r i l y d i s m i s s a p e t i t i o n w i t h o u t a w a i t i n g by not in the State i s n o t t h e same as s a y i n g t h a t e n t i t l e d to notice the c i r c u i t court. - court a response a petitioner i s of the a p p l i c a t i o n of a procedural bar Summary d i s m i s s a l may o c c u r a f t e r t h e S t a t e h a s f i l e d a r e s p o n s e i n c l u d i n g an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e o r has it f i l e d a r e s p o n s e n o t i n c l u d i n g an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e when has n o t responded a t a l l . 28 CR-11-0860 The logical conclusion of the p r i n c i p l e expressed emphasized p o r t i o n of note obiter dictum, process right 6 o f A.G., i s that a petitioner which itself i s deprived t o n o t i c e by t h e sua sponte i n the was mere o f t h e due- application of a p r o c e d u r a l b a r b y t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t when t h e S t a t e f i l e s a r e s p o n s e i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f a i l i n g t o r a i s e any p r o c e d u r a l bars, but a p e t i t i o n e r process i s not deprived by t h e sua sponte a p p l i c a t i o n of notice a n d due o f a p r o c e d u r a l b a r by t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t when t h e S t a t e f i l e s no r e s p o n s e a t a l l i n the circuit contravenes reenforced court. This the express i n Ex p a r t e from a p p l y i n g Court i n Ex It parte directly Clemons, an a p p e l l a t e court sua sponte except when are present. I do u n d e r s t a n d that t o c l a r i f y t h e p a r a m e t e r s o f Ex p a r t e but nonetheless, f o r the reason comments s h o u l d n o t be c i t e d as Seven months a f t e r sense. James, p r e v e n t i n g an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e t h e C o u r t was a t t e m p t i n g these no prohibition extraordinary circumstances Clemons, makes Ex p a r t e explained herein, precedent. C l e m o n s was released, this r e l e a s e d D a v e n p o r t v. S t a t e , 987 So. 2d 652 ( A l a . C r i m . 29 CR-11-0860 App. 2007) a c a s e c i t e d as a u t h o r i t y by t h e m a j o r i t y Davenport f i l e d claims after expired. the a R u l e 32 the limitations Without having circuit court denied petition was court's ruling 2007). I n Ward, t h e equitable excuse the in petition citing tolling period in the petition This Ex parte could be Ward, 46 a p p l i e d by of the and t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s petition within and bar the 3d 888 (Ala. beyond h i s the p r e v e n t e d him limitations Davenport did that: control; from f i l i n g of his Davenport time-barred plead to 32.3(c) exercise period. not that court of Rule the the circuit alleged in his petition t h a t b e c a u s e t h e p e t i t i o n was because State, that circuit were u n a v o i d a b l e e v e n w i t h diligence; face, So. the procedural a c a s e where t h e p e t i t i o n e r rationalized only had A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t e s t a b l i s h e d application circumstances 32.2(c) affirmed there e x i s t e d extraordinary circumstances the Rule stating Court that on i t s she was D a v e n p o r t has n o t b e e n f o l l o w e d by t h i s C o u r t i n any subsequent case. I t has b e e n c i t e d as a u t h o r i t y i n o n l y one c a s e , and t h e n o n l y f o r t h e u n q u e s t i o n e d p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a c i r c u i t c o u r t may summarily dismiss a p e t i t i o n absent a r e s p o n s e by t h e S t a t e . B e c k w o r t h v. S t a t e , [Ms. CR-07-0051, May 1, 2009] So. 3d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . 7 30 7 nonjurisdictional r e c e i v e d a response from the "[d]enied." by raising here. CR-11-0860 entitled trial to equitable court's tolling, j u d g m e n t i f i t was this Court could affirm c o r r e c t f o r any the reason. " B a s e d on t h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f [Ex p a r t e ] Ward, t h e p e t i t i o n e r must e s t a b l i s h entitlement to the remedy o f e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g i n h e r p e t i t i o n . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e p e t i t i o n was t i m e - b a r r e d on i t s f a c e , and the a p p e l l a n t d i d not a s s e r t e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g i n the petition. T h e r e f o r e , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t c o u l d have p r o p e r l y summarily denied the p e t i t i o n pursuant to Rule 32.2(c), A l a . R. C r i m . P., b e c a u s e i t was time-barred. A c c o r d i n g l y , we a f f i r m t h e circuit c o u r t ' s judgment. See S u m l i n v. S t a t e , 710 So. 2d 941 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1998) ( h o l d i n g t h a t we will a f f i r m a c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n i f i t i s c o r r e c t f o r any r e a s o n ) . 4 " Because the c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d not r e q u i r e a response from the State, the due process c o n s i d e r a t i o n s d i s c u s s e d i n Ex p a r t e C l e m o n s , 55 So. 3d 348 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) , a r e n o t i m p l i c a t e d i n t h i s c a s e . See A.G. v. S t a t e , 989 So. 2d 1167 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2007) ." 4 D a v e n p o r t , 987 The so, but petition So. 2d a t 655. D a v e n p o r t C o u r t d i d n o t a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t i t was by affirming because p e t i t i o n d i d not the the circuit petition was court's untimely i n c l u d e an a l l e g a t i o n denial and of the because the that equitable s h o u l d be a p p l i e d , D a v e n p o r t sua s p o n t e a p p l i e d t h e bar i n Rule 32.2(c). In i t s h o l d i n g , note 4 t h a t the presumption t h a t the 31 doing tolling procedural Davenport e x p l a i n e d circuit court could in have CR-11-0860 summarily a p p l i e d a p r o c e d u r a l bar d i d not o f f e n d principles because, i n accord w i t h A.G., the due-process petitioner was n o t , i n any e v e n t , e n t i t l e d to due-process p r o t e c t i o n s because the respond to the S t a t e d i d not petition. Note 4 i n Davenport appears t o r e f e r t o note but Davenport containing holding. did file does explain o b i t e r dictum, The a r e s p o n s e and Davenport. can C o u r t i n A.G. t h e l a n g u a g e and in not support e f f e c t o f an o m i t t e d a in A.G., footnote the Davenport asserted procedural the A.G., Court's s p e c i f i c a l l y noted t h a t the r a t i o n a l e o f A.G. I n A.G., how 6 in do n o t bars. support State Moreover, the holding f o l l o w i n g language d e s c r i b e d a f f i r m a t i v e defense: "As t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t e x p l a i n e d in L i b e r t y N a t i o n a l L i f e I n s u r a n c e Co. v. U n i v e r s i t y o f A l a b a m a H e a l t h S e r v i c e s F o u n d a t i o n , P.C., 881 So. 2d 1013 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) : "'Nonetheless, t h i s Court w i l l a f f i r m the trial court on any valid legal ground presented by the record, regardless of w h e t h e r t h a t g r o u n d was c o n s i d e r e d , o r e v e n i f i t was r e j e c t e d , by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Ex p a r t e R y a l s , 773 So. 2d 1011 ( A l a . 2000), c i t i n g Ex p a r t e W i g i n t o n , 743 So. 2d 1071 (Ala. 1 9 9 9 ) , and S m i t h v. E q u i f a x S e r v s . , I n c . , 537 So. 2d 463 ( A l a . 1988) . This rule fails in a p p l i c a t i o n only where d u e - p r o c e s s c o n s t r a i n t s r e q u i r e some n o t i c e a t t h e t r i a l l e v e l , w h i c h was o m i t t e d , o f the b a s i s t h a t would otherwise support an 32 the CR-11-0860 a f f i r m a n c e , s u c h as when a t o t a l l y o m i t t e d a f f i r m a t i v e defense might, i f a v a i l a b l e f o r consideration, suffice to affirm a judgment, Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. B e n t l e y , 851 So. 2d 458 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) , "881 A.G., So. 2d a t 1020." 989 So. 2d a t 1180-1181 A.G. r e a f f i r m e d t h e p r i n c i p l e s (emphasis added). Therefore, t h a t an u n p l e a d e d a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e may n o t be a p p l i e d b y an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s u a s p o n t e t o affirm a trial court's d i s m i s s a l o f an o r d i n a r y c i v i l case. Ex p a r t e Clemons m o d i f i e d t h a t r u l e i n R u l e 32 c a s e s , a l l o w i n g an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t t o a f f i r m a c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t on t h e basis o f an o m i t t e d a f f i r m a t i v e defense when court f i n d s that extraordinary circumstances Davenport a p p l i e d a q u e s t i o n a b l e the to limitation sua sponte procedural bars required extraordinary-circumstances exist. rationale to i n Ex p a r t e Clemons on t h i s apply the appellate Court's without circumvent authority conducting analysis. the However, t h e r a t i o n a l e e m p l o y e d i n D a v e n p o r t a l l o w s p r e c i s e l y what Ex p a r t e Clemons prohibits, as does e f f e c t of a l a c k of waiver the majority's analysis by t h e S t a t e i n t h i s D a v e n p o r t , a p e t i t i o n e r may be d e n i e d relief case. Under on a p r o c e d u r a l ground t h a t i s a p p l i e d f o r t h e f i r s t time by t h i s Court 33 of the during CR-11-0860 appellate review circumstances, appellate the without c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the d e l i n e a t e d i n Ex p a r t e C l e m o n s , w h i c h a l l o w c o u r t t o sua petitioner sponte i s denied apply a procedural bar. n o t i c e and an in Davenport prohibition against procedural bars Although this and this denies bars. compliance with method the circumstances determining whether justify sponte sua sua Court do set Court's application application of should be overruled, sua this Court must a c t in i n Ex parte Clemons, by circumstances sponte apply and exist a procedural bar. next s e c t i o n of t h i s s p e c i a l w r i t i n g of process. i n the r e c o r d of the case, extraordinary set cannot so out rebut rationale Supreme sponte Davenport However, t o the Alabama a p e t i t i o n e r due mean t h a t t h i s procedural the Court's I believe that does n o t examining circumvents The an Thus, opportunity to the p r o c e d u r a l ground i n the c i r c u i t c o u r t . forth extraordinary In by that the I conduct t h a t a n a l y s i s . II. Extraordinary-Circumstances Analysis r e q u i r e d by Ex p a r t e Clemons Had t h e m a j o r i t y c o n d u c t e d analysis, an 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 i t c o u l d have e x a m i n e d 34 this case in light of the CR-11-0860 factors Cir. listed i n Rosario 1998), s e t out v. U n i t e d i n Ex p a r t e States, 164 F.3d 729 Clemons: " I n R o s a r i o v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 164 F.3d 729, 732-33 (2d C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o r the Second C i r c u i t d e a l t w i t h t h i s i s s u e in considerable d e t a i l : "'We may, n e v e r t h e l e s s , r a i s e t h e s e i s s u e s [not a s s e r t e d b e l o w by t h e g o v e r n m e n t ] sua sponte. See, e.g., U n i t e d S t a t e s v. T a l k , 158 F.3d 1064, 1067 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) ; See a l s o W a s h i n g t o n v. James, 996 F.2d 1442, 1448 (2d C i r . 1993) ( r a i s i n g defendant's procedural d e f a u l t sua s p o n t e on state p r i s o n e r ' s § 2254 p e t i t i o n ) . We b e l i e v e that c o n s i d e r a t i o n of these issues is appropriate here f o r three reasons. " ' F i r s t , i t i s necessary to p r o t e c t the finality of f e d e r a l c r i m i n a l judgments. See U n i t e d S t a t e s v. A l l e n , 16 F.3d 377, 379 n. 2 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1994) ("the important interests served by the principle of finality [of c r i m i n a l judgments] cannot a l w a y s be f o r e c l o s e d by w a i v e r " ) ; See a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s v. F r a d y , 456 U.S. 152, 166, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 71 L.Ed. 2d 816 (1982). R a i s i n g the i s s u e of defendants' procedural d e f a u l t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p r o p r i a t e where, as h e r e , t h e movants p l e d g u i l t y . We r e c o g n i z e t h a t "the concern w i t h f i n a l i t y served by the limitation on collateral a t t a c k has s p e c i a l f o r c e w i t h r e s p e c t t o c o n v i c t i o n s b a s e d on g u i l t y p l e a s . " U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 784, 99 S.Ct. 2085, 60 L.Ed. 2d 634 (1979); see Bousley [v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 523 U.S. 614, 6 2 1 ] , 118 S.Ct. [1604] a t 1 6 1 0 [ , 140 L.Ed. 2d 828 (1998) ] . "The i m p a c t o f i n r o a d s on finality i s g r e a t e s t i n the context of 35 (2d CR-11-0860 g u i l t y p l e a s because the v a s t m a j o r i t y of c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n s r e s u l t from such p l e a s and because the concern that unfair procedures may have resulted in the c o n v i c t i o n o f an i n n o c e n t d e f e n d a n t i s o n l y r a r e l y r a i s e d by a p e t i t i o n t o s e t a s i d e a a g u i l t y p l e a . " L u c a s v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 963 F.2d 8, 14 (2d Cir. 1992) (internal quotation omitted) "'In a d d i t i o n , the unique c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s case compel the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the g o v e r n m e n t was n o t b l a m e w o r t h y i n f a i l i n g to r a i s e t h i s issue. Because d i c t u m i n T r i e s t m a n v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 124 F.3d 361, 369 n. 8 (2d C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) , i n d i c a t e d t h a t a § 2255 movant's B a i l e y [v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed. 2d 472 (1995),] claim could e a s i l y hurdle a procedural bar challenge, the government may w e l l have c o n c l u d e d t h a t i t w o u l d be subject to criticism for raising a f r i v o l o u s argument. I t was only i n May 1998 -- one month a f t e r t h e government s u b m i t t e d i t s b r i e f i n t h i s a p p e a l -- t h a t t h e Supreme C o u r t s u g g e s t e d i n B o u s l e y t h a t t h e T r i e s t m a n d i c t u m m i g h t be i n c o r r e c t . See De J e s u s v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 161 F.3d 99, 102-03 (2d C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) . " ' F i n a l l y , the p r o c e d u r a l d e f a u l t i s manifest from the record and, hence, r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s d e f e n s e does n o t r e q u i r e further fact-finding. Thus, a d d i t i o n a l scarce judicial resources need not be e x p e n d e d by remanding t h i s case to the d i s t r i c t court. See W a s h i n g t o n , 996 F.2d at 1449. "'Granted, a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s s h o u l d not l i g h t l y r a i s e the i s s u e of a defendant's procedural d e f a u l t sua sponte. We are 36 CR-11-0860 aware t h a t p r i s o n e r s s e e k i n g h a b e a s c o r p u s r e l i e f l a c k the resources a v a i l a b l e to the g o v e r n m e n t . We s h o u l d h e s i t a t e t o l e n d t h e weight of the j u d i c i a r y to t h i s already u n e v e n f i g h t , l e s t we be c a s t i n t h e r o l e of a second l i n e of defense, p r o t e c t i n g government p r o s e c u t o r s from t h e i r e r r o r s . We a r e s a t i s f i e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h i s a p p e a l w a r r a n t s t h e e x e r c i s e o f o u r i n h e r e n t power to r a i s e the p r e v i o u s l y unaddressed i s s u e . We now t u r n t o i t . ' " "164 F.3d a t 732-33. 55 So. 3d a t 354-55. When sponte, determining appellate whether courts to seek to apply procedural protect the bars finality c r i m i n a l judgments by b a l a n c i n g t h e need f o r f i n a l i t y a concomitant given relief been done. concern that i n appropriate to consider o b t a i n e d by a g u i l t y p l e a . is cases petitioners is whether A "concern the should rarely plea." 164 r a i s e d by F.3d at a petition 732-33. to set aside Second, the procedural Id. be considered. 37 was that u n f a i r procedures to raise should first conviction blameworthiness of the State i n f a i l i n g bar be n o t have a r e : The have r e s u l t e d i n t h e c o n v i c t i o n o f an i n n o c e n t only of against where j u s t i c e may These 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 circumstance may deserving sua And, defendant a guilty degree the of omitted third, an CR-11-0860 a p p e l l a t e c o u r t should c o n s i d e r whether the p r o c e d u r a l i s manifest of the from the r e c o r d , w h i c h w o u l d mean t h a t r e s o l u t i o n affirmative fact-finding. default defense does not require further Id. An a n a l y s i s o f t h e p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r y o f t h i s c a s e and claims made properly leads a f f i r m the sponte a p p l y i n g the to first the t i m e on Evaluating c o n v i c t i o n was the conclusion trial court's procedural that denial bars this of Court relief r a i s e d by the the may by sua State for appeal. the first obtained f a c t o r -- whether the p e t i t i o n e r ' s by a p l e a o f g u i l t y -- an examination o f t h e r e c o r d shows t h a t McLeod's c o n v i c t i o n s were a r e s u l t o f a jury t r i a l . criminal The importance of p r e s e r v i n g allows sponte judgements unpleaded procedural petitioner pleaded bar innocent defendant." 14 Cir. (2d 1992). and there is no have r e s u l t e d i n t h e See L u c a s v. U n i t e d This circumstance finality application more r e a d i l y i n c a s e s guilty " u n f a i r p r o c e d u r e s may sua the of an i n which the indication that c o n v i c t i o n of States, does 963 F.2d not p r e s e r v i n g the f i n a l i t y of the c r i m i n a l judgment i n t h i s 38 of an 8, favor case, CR-11-0860 and mitigates procedural against bars the r a i s e d by sua the sponte S t a t e on a p p l i c a t i o n of the appeal. C o n c e r n i n g t h e s e c o n d f a c t o r -- t h e b l a m e w o r t h i n e s s o f t h e State in failing court -- was response petition, court." nor raise an e x a m i n a t i o n blameless circuit to in court. The within circuit specify a to raise shorter otherwise d i d not time the days a f t e r time court i n the procedural allows (30) the bar for bars State the no opportunity circumstance criminal does to favor judgments s e r v i c e of specified the the s h o u l d be Regarding third default i s manifest fact-finding -- 30 days and to denial. indicates that be State This of the the sua r a i s e d by t h e State allowed. the the p r o c e d u r a l bar the The finality the by response sponte a p p l i c a t i o n of the p r o c e d u r a l bars on a p p e a l its State's before case the State preserving in this in a f f o r d the the respond State file to f i l e d b e f o r e i t s u m m a r i l y d e n i e d McLeod's p l e a d i n g . had circuit r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t the 32.7(a) "[w]ithin thirty or procedural of the failing Rule the factor -- whether the procedural f r o m t h e r e c o r d and w h e t h e r r e s o l u t i o n o f as an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r the pleadings 39 in the record show that the CR-11-0860 claims made by McLeod a r e t h e y were u n t i m e l y . filed at least Rule five 32.2(c) knowingly Rule failed 32.2(b). circuit previous to The reveal This Court c o u r t b e c a u s e an precluded. circuit procedural criminal does by remand t h i s the the After balancing 32.2(c), Ala. R. the of case claims, case be on some to by the together proven the in the of the appeal. This of the indicates that and finality the sua b a r s r a i s e d by t h e State allowed. the factors discussed a b o v e , I am opinion that those e x t r a o r d i n a r y circumstances applying period prosecutor application State preserving in this on a p p e a l s h o u l d be the and r e l e v a n t c a s e l a w , shows t h a t t h e y prevent favor has also precluded e x a m i n a t i o n of the sponte a p p l i c a t i o n of the p r o c e d u r a l sponte that petitions history c l a i m and was need not would raised judgments that a d d i t i o n a l facts could that bars circumstance criminal No court and the l i m i t a t i o n s claim the a successive w i t h t h e t e x t o f R u l e 32 and are claims postconviction h i s claims before expired. v e n i r e m e m b e r s was jurisdictional I t i s a l s o w o r t h y o f n o t e t h a t McLeod c o u l d have p r e s e n t e d of not procedural Crim. P., by 40 bars this of Court of the i n favor of sua Rules 32.2(b) outweigh the and one CR-11-0860 circumstance made. forth this i n d i c a t i n g t h a t s u c h an a p p l i c a t i o n s h o u l d n o t be I would f i n d t h a t the e x t r a o r d i n a r y i n Ex p a r t e State the circuit set Clemons do e x i s t and t h a t i t i s p r o p e r f o r C o u r t t o sua sponte a p p l y the circumstances f o r the f i r s t court's the procedural t i m e on a p p e a l . judgment solely w a i v e r by t h e S t a t e i n t h e c i r c u i t b a r s r a i s e d by However, t o a f f i r m on the basis that no c o u r t had o c c u r r e d ignores t h e o t h e r Ex p a r t e Clemons 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 and t h e p l a i n mandate o f t h a t case. Conclusion The h o l d i n g i n Ex p a r t e Clemons p u t i n f o r c e principles to p r o h i b i t this procedural bars circuit court, circumstances application establishes that were unless exist of a Court sua sponte not pleaded this Court that, on procedural a completely from by finds balance, bar. The new p r i n c i p l e the State that appellate brief, that one then circumstance, this i n the allow sua majority sponte opinion that i f the State d i d opportunity the a f f i r m a t i v e defense i n i t s C o u r t may, sua applying extraordinary n o t w a i v e an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e b e c a u s e i t h a d no t o a s s e r t one, b u t does p r e s e n t due-process sponte 41 by s o l e l y apply that considering affirmative CR-11-0860 defense to a f f i r m the judgment of the circuit court. holding r u n s a f o u l o f t h e p r o h i b i t i o n s i n Ex p a r t e Clemons. A d d i t i o n a l l y , because the h o l d i n g i n Davenport deprives Clemons, a p e t i t i o n e r o f t h e due I believe that erroneously p r o c e s s a f f o r d e d by Ex Davenport should be the d e n i a l o f r e l i e f by preclusionary grounds in a the circuit c o u r t be I r e s p e c t f u l l y concur i n the analysis affirmed c a s e where p r e c l u s i o n a r y were n o t a s s e r t e d o r a p p l i e d i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t . r e s u l t r e a c h e d by parte overruled. F i n a l l y , o n l y by u s i n g an 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 can This on grounds 8 Therefore, the majority. I n t h i s c a s e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d n o t s p e c i f y any r e a s o n for denying r e l i e f . W h e t h e r a c i r c u i t c o u r t may expressly a p p l y a p r e c l u s i o n a r y b a r t o deny r e l i e f a f t e r t h e S t a t e has r e s p o n d e d , and f a i l e d t o a s s e r t t h a t b a r , o r i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a r e s p o n s e by t h e S t a t e i s n o t b e f o r e u s . 8 42

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.