Walter Patrick v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/25/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 CR-09-1578 Walter Patrick v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal KELLUM, The court's relief from W a s h i n g t o n C i r c u i t (CC-03-192.60) Court Judge. appellant, Walter summary denial P a t r i c k , appeals of h i s petition from t h e c i r c u i t f o r postconviction f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 3 2 , A l a . R . C r i m . P., i n w h i c h he c h a l l e n g e d h i s J u n e 2 0 0 4 c o n v i c t i o n f o r sodomy i n t h e f i r s t CR-09-1578 degree This and h i s r e s u l t i n g s e n t e n c e o f 30 y e a r s ' court affirmed Patrick's conviction imprisonment. and sentence by u n p u b l i s h e d memorandum. See P a t r i c k v . S t a t e , 954 So. 2d 1141 (Ala. C r i m . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ( t a b l e ) . A c e r t i f i c a t e o f j u d g m e n t was i s s u e d on December 9, 2005. On S e p t e m b e r 8, 2009, P a t r i c k f i l e d p e t i t i o n i n w h i c h he r a i s e d c l a i m s of trial and a p p e l l a t e acknowledged 32.2(c), of i n e f f e c t i v e Crim. neglect" P.; h o w e v e r , outside f i l i n g h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . Patrick alleged his counsel, petition, had agreed once f i l e d , to forward a i n the Vader t h a t he on P a t r i c k ' s b e h a l f f a c t , P e n n i n g t o n d i d n o t do s o . F u r t h e r , Pennington that (C. 15.) S p e c i f i c a l l y , appellate a t i m e l y R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n alleged resulted P e n n i n g t o n , had i n f o r m e d P a t r i c k and h i s w i f e file Patrick pursuant t o Rule Patrick h i s control untimely that assistance In his petition, t h a t h i s p e t i t i o n was u n t i m e l y A l a . R. "excusable counsel. t h e i n s t a n t R u l e 32 Al would when, i n Patrick alleged that copy t o P a t r i c k , which, of the Rule 32 P a t r i c k a l l e g e d , he h a d n o t r e c e i v e d . A f t e r some t i m e h a d p a s s e d a n d P a t r i c k d i d not receive a copy, Patrick initiated correspondence with P e n n i n g t o n , b u t he r e c e i v e d no r e s p o n s e . P a t r i c k a l l e g e d t h a t 2 CR-09-1578 his wife subsequently attempted to i n i t i a t e contact with P e n n i n g t o n . A f t e r m a k i n g c o n t a c t w i t h P e n n i n g t o n , she was t o l d t h a t t h e R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n h a d b e e n f i l e d i n t h e c i r c u i t court. S t i l l h a v i n g no c o p y o f t h e R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n p u r p o r t e d l y f i l e d by Pennington i n their possession, Patrick and h i s w i f e a t t e m p t e d a g a i n t o c o n t a c t P e n n i n g t o n . P a t r i c k s t a t e d t h a t he and h i s w i f e attempted t o contact Pennington via certified m a i l a n d e l e c t r o n i c m a i l . P a t r i c k c l a i m e d t h a t , a f t e r numerous f a i l e d attempts t o e s t a b l i s h contact, h i s w i f e contacted the W a s h i n g t o n C i r c u i t C o u r t c l e r k ' s o f f i c e a n d was t o l d t h a t no Rule 32 petition had been filed on Patrick's behalf. T h e r e a f t e r , P a t r i c k f i l e d a f o r m a l c o m p l a i n t w i t h t h e Alabama State Bar. P a t r i c k other from things, a t t a c h e d t o h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , a J u n e 23, 2009, the D i s c i p l i n a r y letter addressed Commission o f t h e Alabama among to Patrick State Bar s t a t i n g t h a t i t h a d d e t e r m i n e d t h a t f o r m a l c h a r g e s s h o u l d be filed against Pennington. A t t h e same t i m e he f i l e d h i s September 8, 2009, R u l e 32 petition, Patrick also filed a "Motion f o r Enlargement of T i m e " i n w h i c h he r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e n l a r g e t h e time l i m i t a t i o n i n R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P. I n s u p p o r t 3 CR-09-1578 of h i s request, P a t r i c k r e a s s e r t e d t h e same f a c t s t h a t he a s s e r t e d i n h i s R u l e 32 been r e p r e s e n t e d by appellate counsel petition. had P a t r i c k s t a t e d t h a t he P e n n i n g t o n , whom he on d i r e c t a p p e a l and had who had r e t a i n e d as had declared his that he w o u l d p u r s u e p o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f on h i s b e h a l f by f i l i n g a R u l e 32 wife had requested copy of the evasive, delay P a t r i c k f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t he from Pennington f i l e d R u l e 32 petition on not providing a copy of the a copy, R u l e 32 had and On September 15, that 2009, the was his ultimately to 2009, 32 motions the State be filed a response P a t r i c k ' s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n was Ala. R. Crim. P. Without an o r d e r on J u n e 4, 2010, 32 In petition. i t s order, days. time-barred court entered the 4 that a behalf. i n which conducting to Patrick. Patrick circuit f i l e d w i t h i n 30 failed representation P a t r i c k ' s m o t i o n f o r e n l a r g e m e n t o f t i m e and Rule a Pennington petition b e e n t i m e l y f i l e d on h i s his attempt to j u s t i f y s t a t e d t h a t he b e l i e v e d h i s a t t o r n e y ' s R u l e 32 and numerous o c c a s i o n s and gave numerous e x c u s e s i n an in provide petition. court granted ordered that a l l On September i t asserted under Rule a hearing, the 30, that 32.2(c), circuit denying P a t r i c k ' s Rule circuit court found that CR-09-1578 Patrick's appeal petition was time-barred under Rule 3 2 . 2 ( c ) . This followed. Patrick c o n t e n d s on appeal t h a t the circuit court erred by n o t a p p l y i n g t h e d o c t r i n e o f e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g t o h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . C i t i n g Ex p a r t e Ward, 46 So. 2d 888 ( A l a . 2007), P a t r i c k contends t h a t e x t r a o r d i n a r y circumstances beyond h i s c o n t r o l e x i s t e d t h a t were u n a v o i d a b l e e v e n w i t h t h e of due diligence tolling should Before appeal, 2010, by 2009, apply thus, that the merits t h i s C o u r t remanded t h e circuit circuit granting doctrine entry of Patrick's c a s e by of "enlargement an order equitable claims on December confusion order on time" of of case. court to c l a r i f y the court's an the to h i s p a r t i c u l a r addressing f o r the the and, and to a grant equitable of the tolling. requested On relief remand, the under circuit nor does t h i s Court 5 find, that 15, ascertain amounted doctrine of court entered an an e n l a r g e m e n t o f t i m e f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f j u d i c i a l economy and intend, 3, the order i n which i t s t a t e d t h a t the c o u r t granted not on created September w h e t h e r t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s September 15, 2009, o r d e r to exercise the that i t " d i d doctrine of CR-09-1578 equitable t o l l i n g i s a p p l i c a b l e i n the present case." on R e t u r n t o Remand, C. Notwithstanding equitable tolling, 2.) the c i r c u i t court's determine the merits "the court order, we must now of P a t r i c k ' s claim that the doctrine of as discussed i n Ex a p p l i e s i n h i s case. Rule 32.2(c), that (Record shall parte Ward, A l a . R. C r i m . P., not e n t e r t a i n supra, provides any p e t i t i o n " brought u n d e r c e r t a i n s p e c i f i e d g r o u n d s u n l e s s t h e p e t i t i o n was t i m e l y filed. first I n Ward, o u r Supreme C o u r t a d d r e s s e d , as a m a t t e r o f impression, 32.2(c), whether A l a . R. this tolling." "whether C r i m . P., Court should 46 So. 3d a t 891 the l i m i t a t i o n s period i n Rule i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l , and, i f n o t , adopt the doctrine (footnote omitted). of equitable The Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e o f e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g a p p l i e d and recognized equitable tolling as l i m i t a t i o n s p r o v i s i o n i n Rule 32.2(c). holding, o u r Supreme C o u r t an exception to 46 So. 2d a t 897. I n so stated: " A l t h o u g h we t o d a y h o l d t h a t t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p r o v i s i o n i n Rule 32.2(c) i s not a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l bar, i t i s n o n e t h e l e s s w r i t t e n i n mandatory terms. Rule 32.2(c) p r o v i d e s that 'the court s h a l l not e n t e r t a i n any p e t i t i o n f o r r e l i e f f r o m a c o n v i c t i o n or s e n t e n c e ' t h a t i s not t i m e l y . In p r i o r cases i n which i t concluded that equitable tolling is u n a v a i l a b l e , the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals based i t s 6 the CR-09-1578 h o l d i n g on t h e m a n d a t o r y ' s h a l l ' l a n g u a g e f o u n d i n R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( c ) and t h e f a c t t h a t no A l a b a m a c o u r t has ever h e l d that there i s an exception to the l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d . See, e.g., A r t h u r v. S t a t e , 820 So. 2d 886, 889-90 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2001)(holding t h a t t h e r e i s no e x c e p t i o n t o R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( c ) and t h a t t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l ) . However, t h i s C o u r t has n e v e r h e l d t h a t e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g i s n o t a v a i l a b l e i n a c a s e s u c h as t h i s one. M o r e o v e r , because Rule 32.2(c) does not establish a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l b a r , t h e t r i a l c o u r t has t h e power t o h e a r an u n t i m e l y p e t i t i o n b e c a u s e t h e r u n n i n g o f t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d would 'not d i v e s t the circuit c o u r t o f t h e power t o t r y t h e c a s e . ' Ex parte Seymour, 946 So. 2d 536, 539 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) . "We h o l d t h a t e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g i s a v a i l a b l e i n extraordinary circumstances t h a t are beyond the p e t i t i o n e r ' s c o n t r o l and t h a t a r e u n a v o i d a b l e e v e n w i t h t h e e x e r c i s e o f d i l i g e n c e . We r e c o g n i z e that ' [ i ] n a c a p i t a l c a s e s u c h as t h i s , t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s of error are terminal, and we therefore pay particular attention to whether p r i n c i p l e s of " e q u i t y w o u l d make t h e rigid a p p l i c a t i o n of a l i m i t a t i o n p e r i o d u n f a i r " and w h e t h e r t h e p e t i t i o n e r has " e x e r c i s e d r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e i n i n v e s t i g a t i n g and b r i n g i n g [ t h e ] c l a i m s . " ' Fahy v. H o r n , 240 F.3d 239, 245 (3d C i r . 2001) ( q u o t i n g M i l l e r v. New J e r s e y Dep't o f C o r r . , 145 F.3d 616, 618 (3d C i r . 1998)). Nevertheless, 'the t h r e s h o l d n e c e s s a r y t o t r i g g e r e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g i s v e r y h i g h , l e s t the exceptions swallow the rule.' United States v. M a r c e l l o , 212 F.3d 1005, 1010 ( 7 t h C i r . 2000) . "Finally, we must a d d r e s s t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s b u r d e n o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t he o r she i s e n t i t l e d t o t h e r e l i e f a f f o r d e d by t h e d o c t r i n e o f e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g . R u l e 3 2 . 7 ( d ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., a l l o w s t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o s u m m a r i l y d i s m i s s a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n t h a t , on i t s f a c e , i s p r e c l u d e d o r f a i l s t o s t a t e a 7 CR-09-1578 c l a i m , and we have h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l 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 w i t h o u t 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 . B i s h o p v. S t a t e , 608 So. 2d 345, 347-48 ( A l a . 1992)('"Where a s i m p l e r e a d i n g of a p e t i t i o n f o r p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f shows t h a t , a s s u m i n g e v e r y allegation of the petition t o be true, i t is o b v i o u s l y w i t h o u t m e r i t or i s p r e c l u d e d , the c i r c u i t c o u r t [may] s u m m a r i l y d i s m i s s t h a t p e t i t i o n w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g a response from the d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y . " ' ) . A l t h o u g h the Rules of C r i m i n a l Procedure i n i t i a l l y p l a c e 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 , t h e u l t i m a t e b u r d e n i s 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 a t a ground of p r e c l u s i o n a p p l i e s . R u l e 32.3, A l a . R. C r i m . P. "Because the l i m i t a t i o n s p r o v i s i o n i s mandatory and a p p l i e s i n a l l b u t t h e most e x t r a o r d i n a r y o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s , when a p e t i t i o n i s t i m e - b a r r e d on i t s face the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating i n h i s p e t i t i o n t h a t there are such extraordinary circumstances justifying the a p p l i c a t i o n of the d o c t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g . See S p i t s y n v. Moore, 345 F.3d a t 799 ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e b u r d e n i s on t h e p e t i t i o n e r f o r t h e w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s t o show t h a t t h e e x c l u s i o n a p p l i e s and that the 'extraordinary circumstances' alleged, r a t h e r t h a n a l a c k o f d i l i g e n c e on h i s p a r t , were t h e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e o f t h e u n t i m e l i n e s s ) ; Drew v. D e p a r t m e n t o f C o r r . , 297 F.3d 1278, 1286 (11th C i r . 2002)('The burden of e s t a b l i s h i n g e n t i t l e m e n t to t h i s e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy p l a i n l y r e s t s w i t h the p e t i t i o n e r . ' ) . Thus, when a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n i s t i m e - b a r r e d on i t s f a c e , t h e p e t i t i o n must e s t a b l i s h e n t i t l e m e n t t o t h e remedy a f f o r d e d by t h e d o c t r i n e o f e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g . A p e t i t i o n t h a t does not a s s e r t e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g , or t h a t a s s e r t s i t but f a i l s t o s t a t e any p r i n c i p l e o f law o r any f a c t t h a t would e n t i t l e the p e t i t i o n e r to the equitable t o l l i n g o f t h e a p p l i c a b l e l i m i t a t i o n s p r o v i s i o n , may be summarily dismissed without a hearing. Rule 3 2 . 7 ( d ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P." 8 CR-09-1578 Ex p a r t e In Ward, 46 So. 3d a t 896-98. the instant case, Patrick p e t i t i o n that the doctrine in h i s case. Pennington, 1 Patrick of equitable alleged had a d v i s e d that him t h a t p e t i t i o n on P a t r i c k ' s b e h a l f and asserted i n h i s Rule t o l l i n g should h i s appellate he w o u l d file 32 apply counsel, a Rule i n the Washington C i r c u i t 32 Court t h a t he w o u l d s e n d P a t r i c k a c o p y o f t h e R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n once i t h a d b e e n f i l e d . P a t r i c k a l l e g e d t h a t he n e v e r a c o p y o f t h e R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . t o no a v a i l , t o c o n t a c t P a t r i c k s t a t e d t h a t he w i f e , who a t t e m p t e d t o c o n t a c t falsely attempts, informed Patrick's receive behalf. was that tried, Pennington t o i n q u i r e about the s t a t u s o f h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . P a t r i c k f u r t h e r r e p r e s e n t e d failed received able Patrick Pennington a f t e r h e r husband's to contact a Rule that h i s Pennington 32 p e t i t i o n alleged that a c o p y o f t h e R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n only t o be had been filed after d i d not he on as r e q u e s t e d , he a n d I n Ex p a r t e Ward, Ward's f a m i l y h a d h i r e d P e n n i n g t o n , t h e same a t t o r n e y whose p e r f o r m a n c e i s a t i s s u e i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e . P e n n i n g t o n i n f o r m e d Ward t h a t he w o u l d f i l e a t i m e l y R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n on h i s b e h a l f . 46 So. 3d a t 890. I n s t e a d , P e n n i n g t o n f i l e d a w r i t o f habeas corpus i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t . Ward a l l e g e d t h a t P e n n i n g t o n d e c e i v e d h i m b y f i l i n g a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s when he was l e d t o b e l i e v e t h a t P e n n i n g t o n was g o i n g t o f i l e a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . 46 So. 3d a t 890. 1 9 CR-09-1578 his w i f e a t t e m p t e d t o c o n t a c t P e n n i n g t o n u s i n g v a r i o u s forms of communication. Finally, Washington C i r c u i t Patrick's Court c l e r k ' s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n h a d b e e n f i l e d wife office contacted the and l e a r n e d t h a t on P a t r i c k ' s b e h a l f . no Patrick s u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d a f o r m a l c o m p l a i n t w i t h Alabama S t a t e B a r . The S t a t e B a r c o n c l u d e d i n a l e t t e r a t t a c h e d as an e x h i b i t t o P a t r i c k ' s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n t h a t f o r m a l c h a r g e s s h o u l d be against filed Pennington. The f a c t s as a l l e g e d b y P a t r i c k i n h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n and "Motion circumstances equitable f o r Enlargement" justifying tolling." the a p p l i c a t i o n however, Patrick's futile, Pennington repeated and, on "extraordinary of the doctrine of Ward, 46 So. 3d a t 897. P e n n i n g t o n P a t r i c k t h a t he w o u l d f i l e court; demonstrate a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n never attempts the one to filed occasion i n the c i r c u i t a Rule contact told 32 petition. Pennington h i s wife was proved able to communicate w i t h P e n n i n g t o n , P e n n i n g t o n f a l s e l y c l a i m e d t h a t he h a d f i l e d a Rule after receiving this continued 32 p e t i t i o n i n the c i r c u i t false information, 10 Even P a t r i c k and h i s w i f e t o t r y and c o n t a c t P e n n i n g t o n r e c e i v e a c o p y o f t h e R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . court. when they Patrick's d i d not failure to CR-09-1578 file a t i m e l y R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n was u n a v o i d a b l e e v e n w i t h t h e exercise of due misrepresentations evasive behavior. diligence, given t o P a t r i c k and h i s w i f e Pennington's and Pennington's See Ex p a r t e Ward, 46 So. 3d a t 897. B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , P a t r i c k adequately demonstrated i n h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n t h a t he was e n t i t l e d t o t o l l i n g o f t h e a p p l i c a b l e l i m i t a t i o n s p r o v i s i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e judgment o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s u m m a r i l y d e n y i n g P a t r i c k ' s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n on the basis that under Rule 32.2(c) i s c a u s e i s remanded f o r p r o c e e d i n g s consistent reversed. This with this i t was t i m e - b a r r e d opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Burke and J o i n e r , with opinion, J J . , concur. Welch, P.J., dissents, j o i n e d b y Windom, J . WELCH, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . I respectfully erred by determining entitle that I believe pleadings P a t r i c k to the r e l i e f remedy o f e q u i t a b l e the dissent. circuit court's alone afforded tolling. Moreover, assertion 11 that that t h e m a j o r i t y has are sufficient to by t h e e x t r a o r d i n a r y I do n o t b e l i e v e i t"did that not intend, nor CR-09-1578 does is this Court find, a p p l i c a b l e i n the that the present factual determination as Remand, C. order remand court issued by this the to order to t h i s court was a following in way we an to as a on Return to the order of ordered 2009, tolling suffices (Record response 15, for the order circuit written Enlargement of of time granted. A l l R. [ w i t h i n ] 30 d a y s . in Time." 32 09." was confusing response a motion that requested As issue. i n which September f o r enlargement t o be f i l e d w / i order equitable i n any equitable stated: Sept This case" P a t r i c k ' s "Motion "Motion motions 15 This clarify to response That 2.) d o c t r i n e of because i t was t h a t the circuit written court in allow tolling. result, this Court remanded the case with direction: "On appeal, Patrick contends, among other t h i n g s , t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by not a p p l y i n g t h e d o c t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g t o h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . In i t s response, the S t a t e notes confusion created i n the record regarding whether the circuit c o u r t ' s September 15, 2009, order granting Patrick an ' e n l a r g e m e n t of time' amounted to the g r a n t of r e l i e f under the d o c t r i n e o f e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g . See Ex p a r t e W a r d , 46 So. 3d 888 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) ; D a v e n p o r t v . S t a t e , 987 So. 2d 652 (Ala. C r i m . App. 2007). In o r d e r to address the issues presented i n P a t r i c k ' s appeal, this Court 12 the CR-09-1578 must a s c e r t a i n w h e t h e r t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t g r a n t e d o r denied Patrick relief under the doctrine of equitable tolling. Because the c i r c u i t court's September 15, 2009, o r d e r i s u n c l e a r i n t h a t r e g a r d , this case i s h e r e b y REMANDED t o t h e W a s h i n g t o n Circuit Court f o r that court to clarify i t s S e p t e m b e r 15, 2009, o r d e r g r a n t i n g an ' e n l a r g e m e n t of time.'" (Alabama Court December 3, An of Criminal examination of the record evident ruling that on the f a c t u a l to statement that reverse a of I at matter whether tolling to allow Remand dated but order which he of pleadings. on remand Patrick rather was motion of I ti s i s not a was of the court, with i n fact merely which a was f o r enlargement the majority's of the c i r c u i t court i ti s devoid of P a t r i c k t o amend h i s p e t i t i o n . disagree to the c i r c u i t that order to Patrick's t h e judgment hearing court's the previous was i n t e n d e d Therefore, cause equitable i n response reveals and c o n s i s t s s o l e l y the c i r c u i t entitled written Order 2010.) evidentiary material time, Appeals with may court decision to and t o remand t h e directions to afford Patrick prove the claim raised in his petition. I believe that the assertions set forth opinion, i ftrue, entitle i n the majority's P a t r i c k to the equitable 13 tolling of CR-09-1578 the limitations period merely a l l e g a t i o n s . alleges supporting fact true. In determine discover other Patrick's doctrine P a t r i c k has did that he equitable State, CR-06-0020, provide he is period Crim. prove App. in the these to an they the April The forth State the 30, facts to relief is of court v. is 2d court determines out-of-time should as Rule that 32 Martinez petition address a l l the c l a i m s though timely tolling is may conduct an the of 14 in issue, the whether limitations entitled accepted, to the evidence contained filed."). , directed w r i t t e n i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , or d e p o s i t i o n s . equitable the Martinez affidavits, the may an So. tolling take in to t o p r o v e on t h e m e r i t s i t may he may or entitled See court circuit are under hearing, of facts t h a t c a s t doubt upon 2010] circuit are court evidentiary consideration or circuit allegations. equitable 32. the Patrick an o p p o r t u n i t y Rule however, proven that entitled 2010)("The Martinez entitled is set tolling. to (Ala. not not f a c t s a d d u c e d by opportunity [Ms. 32.2(c); evidentiary hearing, Patrick claim of rule the a p p l i c a t i o n of e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g an that in form I f , upon the to circuit have circuit in Martinez's his court petition CR-09-1578 For guidance c o u r t may 2549 i n making i t s determination, l o o k t o H o l l a n d v. F l o r i d a , (2 0 1 0 ) ( c o n c e r n i n g one-year limitations discussing gross the r i g h t period U.S. the , 130 to equitable t o l l i n g for filing attorney negligence federal habeas t h e above Windom, J . , reasons, I respectfully concurs. 15 S.Ct. of the relief and t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s diligence). For circuit dissent. due

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.