Nathaniel Shaw v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/04/2013 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-12-0674 N a t h a n i a l Shaw v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CC-07-1624.60) Court KELLUM, J u d g e . Nathaniel dismissal Shaw appeals of h i sp e t i t i o n the c i r c u i t court's f o r postconviction relief summary filed 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 a t t a c k e d his 2 0 0 9 c o n v i c t i o n s f o r one c o u n t o f f i r s t - d e g r e e t h e f t o f CR-12-0674 property, one c o u n t of unlawful possession of cocaine, one count o f t r a f f i c k i n g i n s t o l e n i d e n t i t i e s , and f o u r counts o f second-degree c r i m i n a l p o s s e s s i o n o f a f o r g e d i n s t r u m e n t , and his resulting imprisonment sentences, for each as a h a b i t u a l o f f e n d e r , o f 27 y e a r s ' of the trafficking-in-stolen-identities first-degree-theft c o n v i c t i o n s , a n d 10 and years' imprisonment f o r t h e p o s s e s s i o n - o f - c o c a i n e c o n v i c t i o n and each of the possession-of-a-forged-instrument Court convictions. a f f i r m e d Shaw's c o n v i c t i o n s a n d s e n t e n c e s an u n p u b l i s h e d State This on a p p e a l i n memorandum i s s u e d on A p r i l 16, 2010. Shaw v. (No. C R - 0 8 - 1 3 4 0 ) , 77 So. 3d 624 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2010) (table). The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t d e n i e d c e r t i o r a r i and Court this review, i s s u e d a c e r t i f i c a t e o f j u d g m e n t on December 10, 2010. Shaw f i l e d t h i s , h i s f i r s t , 2012. In hispetition, R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n on A u g u s t 8, Shaw a l l e g e d : (1) T h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e n d e r t h e j u d g m e n t s o r t o impose t h e s e n t e n c e s b e c a u s e , he s a i d , he was i n c o m p e t e n t t o s t a n d t r i a l ; (2) T h a t h i s s e n t e n c e s v i o l a t e d double-jeopardy principles b e c a u s e , he s a i d , he was o r i g i n a l l y s e n t e n c e d t o 27 y e a r s ' i m p r i s o n m e n t f o r t h e f i r s t degree-theft and trafficking-in-stolen-identities c o n v i c t i o n s , and t o 5 y e a r s ' i m p r i s o n m e n t f o r t h e p o s s e s s i o n - o f - c o c a i n e c o n v i c t i o n and each o f t h e 2 CR-12-0674 possession-of-a-forged-instrument convictions, with a l l the sentences ordered t o run c o n c u r r e n t l y , but t h a t f o u r days a f t e r t h e o r i g i n a l sentence was imposed, the t r i a l court i n c r e a s e d h i s 5-year sentences t o 10 y e a r s ' i m p r i s o n m e n t a n d o r d e r e d t h o s e s e n t e n c e s t o r u n c o n s e c u t i v e l y t o t h e two 27year sentences, thus r e s u l t i n g i n h i s b e i n g punished t w i c e f o r each of h i s c o n v i c t i o n s ; (3) T h a t he was d e n i e d h i s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l o f c h o i c e when, he s a i d , t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e f u s e d h i s r e p e a t e d r e q u e s t s t o f i r e r e t a i n e d t r i a l c o u n s e l and h i r e new c o u n s e l ; (4) T h a t h i s c o n v i c t i o n s f o r f i r s t - d e g r e e t h e f t and f o u r c o u n t s o f p o s s e s s i o n o f a f o r g e d i n s t r u m e n t violated double-jeopardy principles because, he s a i d , t h e c u r r e n c y t h a t formed t h e b a s i s of t h e theft c h a r g e was o b t a i n e d as a r e s u l t of the possession-of-a-forged-instrument charges and a l l f i v e c h a r g e s a r o s e f r o m t h e same a c t o r o m i s s i o n ; (5) T h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o sustain h i s conviction f o r trafficking i n stolen i d e n t i f i e s b e c a u s e , he s a i d , t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o present evidence o f f i v e o r more i d e n t i f i c a t i o n documents o f t h e same person or identifying i n f o r m a t i o n o f f i v e o r more s e p a r a t e p e r s o n s as r e q u i r e d b y § 1 3 A - 8 - 1 9 3 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ; (6) T h a t h i s c o n v i c t i o n s f o r t r a f f i c k i n g i n s t o l e n i d e n t i t i e s and f o u r counts o f p o s s e s s i o n o f a forged instrument violated double-jeopardy p r i n c i p l e s b e c a u s e , he s a i d , t h e p e r s o n s named as p a r t of the t r a f f i c k i n g - i n - s t o l e n - i d e n t i t i e s charge were t h e same p e r s o n s t h a t f o r m e d t h e b a s i s o f t h e four possession-of-a-forged-instrument charges; (7) That h i s i n d i c t m e n t was multiplicious " b e c a u s e i t renames t h e s i n g l e o f f e n s e o f p o s s e s s i o n o f f o r g e d i n s t r u m e n t s as t h e f t o f p r o p e r t y a n d / o r t r a f f i c k i n g i n s t o l e n i d e n t i t i e s " (C. 3 7 ) ; a n d 3 CR-12-0674 (8) T h a t he of counsel both s a i d , t r i a l and above i s s u e s a t Shaw a t t a c h e d was d e n i e d t h e e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e a t t r i a l and on a p p e a l b e c a u s e , he a p p e l l a t e counsel d i d not r a i s e the t r i a l o r on a p p e a l . several e x h i b i t s to h i s p e t i t i o n to support h i s claims. On October appointment October 4, 2012, of counsel, 5, 2012. Shaw which filed a the c i r c u i t motion court f o r the denied On November 20, 2012, Shaw f i l e d on a motion requesting that the c i r c u i t court expedite t h e p r o c e e d i n g s and schedule the an evidentiary hearing, d e n i e d on November 27, 2012. the State filed e a c h o f Shaw's (1) and assistance an a n s w e r t o Shaw's p e t i t i o n , claims was m e r i t l e s s . I n i t s order, that part of trial "addressed circuit claim counsel, extensively on his regarding direct Shaw's found that claim ineffective s e t o u t above, " d e c l i n e [ d ] to replow these grounds." that On December 18, 2012, court (8) as arguing summarily d i s m i s s i n g the c i r c u i t of court On o r a b o u t December 17, 2012, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t i s s u e d an o r d e r petition. which had appeal" (C. 108.) The and been i t circuit court then s t a t e d that " [ t ] h e only c o l o r a b l e i s s u e r a i s e d " i n the petition found t h a t was c l a i m ( 2 ) , as s e t o u t a b o v e , a n d t h e c o u r t c l a i m t o be m e r i t l e s s . 4 (C. 108.) The c o u r t d i d CR-12-0674 not s p e c i f i c a l l y address i n i t s order as s e t out above. On January claims 4, (3) t h r o u g h ( 7 ) , 2 0 1 3 , Shaw filed an " o b j e c t i o n " t o the c i r c u i t court's order summarily d i s m i s s i n g his petition, arguing that the c i r c u i t court erred i n not making s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t r e g a r d i n g each o f h i s c l a i m s and i n summarily d i s m i s s i n g h i s p e t i t i o n without response from the S t a t e . The circuit " o b j e c t i o n " on J a n u a r y 10, 2 0 1 3 . T h i s For the a b e t t e r understanding following statement court appeal receiving a denied the followed. o f Shaw's c l a i m s , we s e t o u t of facts from our unpublished memorandum a f f i r m i n g Shaw's c o n v i c t i o n s a n d s e n t e n c e s : " I n May o f 2007, t h e R o y a l Bank o f Canada ('RBC') n o t i f i e d e m p l o y e e s a t a l l o f i t s Montgomery area branches that i t was conducting an i n v e s t i g a t i o n . RBC was l o o k i n g f o r a p e r s o n who was c o m m i t t i n g b a n k f r a u d i n t h e Montgomery a r e a . The s u s p e c t was b e l i e v e d t o have b e e n a t a l o c a l b r a n c h o f RBC on May 9, 2007. RBC s e n t o u t a d e s c r i p t i o n of a suspect, i n c l u d i n g an image o f t h e s u s p e c t t a k e n f r o m v i d e o s u r v e i l l a n c e a t a l o c a l b r a n c h . On t h a t same d a y , B r y a n S h a f f e r , a manager a t t h e RBC on t h e A t l a n t a H i g h w a y , saw Shaw e n t e r a n d l e a v e t h e b a n k a n d b e l i e v e d h i m t o be t h e p e r s o n i n v o l v e d i n the bank f r a u d . S h a f f e r f o l l o w e d Shaw o u t s i d e t h e b a n k . He saw Shaw g e t i n t o a v e h i c l e . When S h a f f e r a t t e m p t e d t o w r i t e down t h e number o f t h e v e h i c l e ' s l i c e n s e p l a t e , Shaw, a p p a r e n t l y n o t i c i n g S h a f f e r , s w i t c h e d t h e l i c e n s e p l a t e on t h e v e h i c l e a n d d r o v e away. S h a f f e r g o t i n h i s v e h i c l e , f o l l o w e d Shaw, and called police. S h a f f e r f o l l o w e d Shaw t o a P u b l i x grocery s t o r e p a r k i n g l o t . S h a f f e r remained 5 CR-12-0674 i n h i s v e h i c l e w h i l e Shaw g o t o u t o f h i s v e h i c l e a n d walked towards t h e s t o r e . At that time, p o l i c e a r r i v e d a t t h e s t o r e , a p p r o a c h e d Shaw, a n d t o o k h i m into custody. At the p o l i c e station, police compared images o f t h e s u s p e c t a t t h e l o c a l b a n k s and compared t h e p e r s o n i n t h e images t o Shaw. B e l i e v i n g Shaw t o be t h e p e r s o n i n t h e i m a g e s , p o l i c e a r r e s t e d h i m . Shaw's v e h i c l e was impounded, and an i n v e n t o r y s e a r c h r e v e a l e d an e y e g l a s s c a s e containing c r a c k c o c a i n e , bank s t a t e m e n t s with account i n f o r m a t i o n o f o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s , checkbooks c o n t a i n i n g checks o f s e v e r a l i n d i v i d u a l s , and a c h e c k made o u t t o a K e n n e t h Dent f o r $986. Police a l s o found a bag t h a t c o n t a i n e d d e p o s i t s l i p s t h a t were u s e d t o make s p l i t d e p o s i t s -- d e p o s i t s f r o m which a p e r s o n r e c e i v e s cash back. Police also found other items, i n c l u d i n g m u l t i p l e c o u n t e r f e i t identifications. The names a n d d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e numbers on some o f t h e s e c o u n t e r f e i t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s m a t c h e d t h e names a n d d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e numbers on t h e c a n c e l l e d f o r g e d c h e c k s f r o m RBC. In other w o r d s , t h e s e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s were u s e d t o c a s h t h e forged checks. Shaw's picture was on t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . V i d e o s u r v e i l l a n c e c a p t u r e d Shaw c a s h i n g those checks I. Initially, brief above. we p o i n t o u t t h a t Shaw does n o t p u r s u e i n h i s on a p p e a l claims I t i s well issues not l i s t e d ( 5 ) , ( 6 ) , ( 7 ) , and settled that and argued this ( 8 ) , as s e t o u t Court " w i l l i n brief." 666 So. 2d 91, 93 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . Brownlee not review v. S t a t e , " ' [ A ] l l e g a t i o n s ... n o t e x p r e s s l y a r g u e d on ... a p p e a l ... a r e deemed b y us t o be abandoned.'" B u r k s v. S t a t e , 600 So. 2d 374, 380 ( A l a . C r i m . 6 CR-12-0674 App. 1991) ( q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v. B u r r o u g h s , 650 F. 2d 595, 598 (5th C i r . 1981)). on appeal those claims B e c a u s e Shaw does n o t e x p r e s s l y a r g u e ( 5 ) , ( 6 ) , ( 7 ) , a n d ( 8 ) , as s e t o u t a b o v e , c l a i m s a r e deemed a b a n d o n e d a n d w i l l by t h i s n o t be considered Court. II. Shaw erred first contends i n summarily on a p p e a l that the c i r c u i t dismissing h i s petition without court making specific f i n d i n g s o f f a c t r e g a r d i n g t h e m e r i t s o f each o f h i s claims. Shaw r a i s e d t h i s i s s u e i n h i s postjudgment t h e r e f o r e , i t was p r o p e r l y p r e s e r v e d f o r o u r r e v i e w . Shaw's argument summarily Ala. i s meritless dismissed R. C r i m . the pursuant However, circuit court t o Rule 32.7(d), P., a n d i t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t " R u l e 32.7 does not r e q u i r e t h e t r i a l his petition because motion; c o u r t t o make s p e c i f i c upon a summary d i s m i s s a l . " findings of fact F i n c h e r v. S t a t e , 724 So. 2d 87, 89 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) . As t h i s C o u r t e x p l a i n e d i n D a n i e l v. S t a t e , 86 So. 3d 405 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 1 1 ) : "No e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g was h e l d i n t h i s c a s e the circuit court summarily dismissed Daniel's petition. 'Because t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t h o l d an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , i t was n o t r e q u i r e d t o make specific f i n d i n g s o f f a c t s as t o e a c h c l a i m . ' B e c k w o r t h v. S t a t e , [Ms. CR-07-0051, May 1, 2009] 7 CR-12-0674 So. 3d , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . '[R]ule 3 2 . 9 ( d ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., r e q u i r e s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t o n l y i f an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g i s h e l d . Findings are not r e q u i r e d i f the p e t i t i o n i s d i s m i s s e d . ' F o w l e r v. S t a t e , 890 So. 2d 1 1 0 1 , 1103 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2004). 'Rule 3 2 . 9 ( d ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., r e q u i r e s t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o make s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t o n l y a f t e r an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g o r t h e receipt of a f f i d a v i t s in lieu of a hearing.' Chambers v. S t a t e , 884 So. 2d 15, 19 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003) . See a l s o Ex p a r t e M c C a l l , 30 So. 3d 400 (Ala. 2008) . The c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n f a i l i n g t o make w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s o f f a c t c o n c e r n i n g Daniel's claims." 86 So. 3d a t 413. Therefore, the c i r c u i t court d i d not e r r i n n o t m a k i n g s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t r e g a r d i n g e a c h o f Shaw's claims. III. Shaw a l s o r e a s s e r t s on a p p e a l claims (1) t h r o u g h ( 4 ) , as s e t o u t above. Before addressing those claims, we first point out the following: "'[W]hen the f a c t s are undisputed a n d an a p p e l l a t e court i s presented w i t h pure questions of l a w , t h a t c o u r t ' s r e v i e w i n a R u l e 32 p r o c e e d i n g i s de novo. ' Ex p a r t e W h i t e , 792 So. 2d 1097, 1098 (Ala. 2001). However, where t h e r e a r e d i s p u t e d f a c t s i n a p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p r o c e e d i n g and t h e c i r c u i t court r e s o l v e s those d i s p u t e d f a c t s , '[t]he standard o f r e v i e w on a p p e a l ... i s w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l j u d g e a b u s e d h i s d i s c r e t i o n when he d e n i e d t h e p e t i t i o n . ' E l l i o t t v. S t a t e , 601 So. 2d 1118, 1119 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1992) 8 CR-12-0674 B o y d v. S t a t e , Rule 913 32.3, So. Ala. 2d 1113, R. 1122 Crim. ( A l a . C r i m . App. P., states 2003). that "[t]he p e t i t i o n e r s h a l l have t h e b u r d e n o f p l e a d i n g and p r o v i n g by a preponderance of the evidence the f a c t s necessary to the p e t i t i o n e r to r e l i e f . " Rule 3 2 . 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. Crim. s t a t e s t h a t " [ t ] h e p e t i t i o n must c o n t a i n a c l e a r and statement of including full grounds. been the disclosure A bare violated grounds allegation and mere upon of the which relief factual of basis law s u f f i c i e n t t o w a r r a n t any f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . " sought, of those right shall not As t h i s " ' R u l e 32.6(b) r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n i t s e l f d i s c l o s e t h e f a c t s r e l i e d upon i n s e e k i n g r e l i e f . ' B o y d v. S t a t e , 746 So. 2d 364, 406 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999) . I n o t h e r w o r d s , i t i s n o t t h e p l e a d i n g o f a conclusion 'which, i f true, entitle[s] the p e t i t i o n e r to r e l i e f . ' L a n c a s t e r v. S t a t e , 638 So. 2d 1370, 1373 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1993) . I t i s the a l l e g a t i o n of f a c t s i n p l e a d i n g which, i f t r u e , e n t i t l e a p e t i t i o n e r to r e l i e f . A f t e r f a c t s are pleaded, which, i f t r u e , e n t i t l e the p e t i t i o n e r to relief, the p e t i t i o n e r i s then e n t i t l e d to an o p p o r t u n i t y , as p r o v i d e d i n R u l e 32.9, A l a . R. C r i m . P., to present evidence p r o v i n g those alleged facts." So. 2d a t 1125. 9 has be Court n o t e d i n Boyd: 913 P., specific is that a constitutional conclusions entitle CR-12-0674 "The b u r d e n o f p l e a d i n g u n d e r R u l e 32.3 a n d R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) i s a h e a v y one. C o n c l u s i o n s u n s u p p o r t e d by s p e c i f i c f a c t s w i l l n o t s a t i s f y t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 32.3 a n d Rule 32.6(b). The f u l l f a c t u a l b a s i s f o r t h e c l a i m must be i n c l u d e d i n t h e p e t i t i o n itself. I f , assuming every factual a l l e g a t i o n i n a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n t o be t r u e , a c o u r t cannot determine whether the petitioner i s entitled to relief, the p e t i t i o n e r has n o t s a t i s f i e d t h e burden o f p l e a d i n g u n d e r R u l e 32.3 and R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) . See B r a c k n e l l v. S t a t e , 883 So. 2d 724 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . " Hyde v. S t a t e , 950 So. 2d 344, 356 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2006). W i t h t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s i n m i n d , we a d d r e s s e a c h o f Shaw's claims i n turn. A. First, above -- Shaw that reasserts he was on a p p e a l denied claim h i s Sixth Amendment c o u n s e l o f c h o i c e when, he s a y s , t h e t r i a l repeated requests to f i r e new counsel. this claim. ( 3 ) , as s e t o u t right to court refused h i s h i s r e t a i n e d c o u n s e l and t o r e t a i n The r e c o r d f r o m Shaw's d i r e c t appeal refutes 1 T h i s c o u r t may t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f i t s own r e c o r d s , and we do so i n t h i s c a s e . See N e t t l e s v. S t a t e , 731 So. 2d 626, 629 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) , and H u l l v. S t a t e , 607 So. 2d 369, 371 n.1 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) . 1 10 CR-12-0674 In his petition, Shaw alleged that his trial counsel, Amardo W e s l e y P i t t e r s , h a d b e e n r e t a i n e d t o r e p r e s e n t h i m , b u t that there "were c o n s t a n t problems" between him and P i t t e r s " [ b ] e f o r e and t h r o u g h o u t t r i a l " court to allow him t o o b t a i n a n d t h a t he "begged t h e t r i a l another lawyer because o f the breakdown i n communication between him and A t t o r n e y (C. 23.) Shaw m a i n t a i n e d " [ t ] h e r e were o b v i o u s major p r o b l e m s b e t w e e n [him] a n d h i s a t t o r n e y , W e s l e y P i t t e r s , first evidenced i n the record that Pitters." on June h e a r i n g , almost a year p r i o r b e t w e e n them o n l y trial. (C. 23.) in court him. open frustrated and Shaw s a i d suppression and t h a t " [ t ] h i n g s i n the year l e a d i n g up t o t h e t o Shaw, P i t t e r s h a d an o u t b u r s t and c o m p l a i n e d (C. 24.) at a to the t r i a l " got worse" According 9, 2008, that Shaw was "'frustrating'" t h a t he a n d P i t t e r s were "more t h a n w i t h e a c h o t h e r months b e f o r e a n d t h r o u g h t h e t r i a l sentencing i n t h i s i n s t a n t case." (C. 24.) Shaw a l l e g e d t h a t " [ b ] e f o r e a n d t h r o u g h o u t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e t r i a l , [he] and A t t o r n e y P i t t e r s d i s p l a y [ e d ] t h e i r i n a b i l i t y t o c o o p e r a t e , communicate, "continuously a n d work together" request[ed] get another lawyer, and t h a t , t h a t he be g i v e n a l l t o no a v a i l . " 11 as a r e s u l t , he an o p p o r t u n i t y t o (C. 24.) Shaw f u r t h e r CR-12-0674 alleged that " h i s c o n t i n u o u s r e q u e s t t o be a l l o w e d another attorney to adequately represent for of delaying the purpose to obtain h i m was n o t d e s i g n e d and d i s r u p t i n g the t r i a l " and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t " s h o u l d have made t h e k i n d o f i n q u i r y t h a t m i g h t have e a s e d [ h i s ] d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , and/or concern," pressur[ed] jail but so l o n g , despite and A t t o r n e y and Pitters (C. 24.) [him] a n d A t t o r n e y adequate defense." d e n i a l of counsel harmless-error reversible "subtly between but that a t no court i n q u i r e or t r y t o determine whether that i tresulted i n a t o t a l of court Shaw m a i n t a i n e d t h a t he h a d "an i r r e c o n c i l a b l e c o n f l i c t " c o n f l i c t between denial the t h e o b v i o u s and c l e a r c o n f l i c t Pitters." time " d i d the t r i a l an instead, a n d [ l e d him] t o p r o c e e d b e c a u s e he h a d b e e n i n him the that, distrust, analysis" l a c k o f communication (C. 25.) of choice qualified error regardless Shaw a l s o preventing argued that the i s " s t r u c t u r a l -- n o t s u b j e c t t o (C. 23) this P i t t e r s was so g r e a t right and t h a t to "[t]he counsel of of whether p r e j u d i c e (C. 26.) 12 continuous choice is i s shown." CR-12-0674 The r e c o r d from was i n i t i a l l y Shaw's d i r e c t r e p r e s e n t e d by Jacob Shaw, o r h i s f a m i l y , January b e h a l f o f Shaw. III.B. Pitters t h a t Shaw Subsequently, t o r e p r e s e n t Shaw. On e n t e r e d h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a r a n c e on r e p r e s e n t e d Shaw t h r o u g h the A p r i l b e l o w on P a r t o f t h i s o p i n i o n , new c o u n s e l was a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t D e s p i t e Shaw's a l l e g a t i o n that h i s troubles with Pitters before waited 2 b u t , as e x p l a i n e d i n more d e t a i l Shaw a t s e n t e n c i n g . year reflects A. D u b i n . retained Pitters 9, 2008, P i t t e r s 2009 t r i a l , appeal until struck, counsel. his trial began, b e g a n i n June 2008, a l m o s t the record r e f l e c t s t h e day h i s t r i a l to request that he i nhis petition be began, allowed a that Shaw the jury was to substitute new after The r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t , a f t e r v o i r d i r e b u t b e f o r e the s t r i k i n g o f the j u r y , the following occurred: "MR. PITTERS: J u d g e , b e f o r e we go on, I d o n ' t want t o w a s t e y o u r t i m e , t h e C o u r t ' s t i m e , t h e s e j u r o r s ' t i m e . A n d I'm h a v i n g a w h a l e o f a t i m e w i t h my c l i e n t b e c a u s e h e ' s i n s i s t e n t t h a t y o u ' r e n o t g o i n g t o have t r i a l t o d a y -- t h a t y o u ' r e n o t g o i n g t o have a t r i a l -- You've n o t g i v e n us a r u l i n g on the Motion t o Suppress. Y e s t e r d a y , I was o v e r a t the j a i l , he was i n s i s t i n g t h a t I f i l e s e v e r a l m o t i o n s ; a n d I ' v e done s o . D u b i n f i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a r a n c e on A u g u s t some t h r e e months b e f o r e Shaw was i n d i c t e d . 2 13 7, 2007, CR-12-0674 "THE COURT: W e ' l l t a k e them up r i g h t after lunch. I'm j u s t t r y i n g t o g e t t h e j u r o r s o u t o f here." (Record on D i r e c t A p p e a l "RDA," R. 83.) struck, a f t e r w h i c h Shaw r e q u e s t e d The j u r y was t h e n t h a t he be a l l o w e d t o be s p e a k on h i s own b e h a l f . At that anything "I don't point, the t r i a l court on t h e r e c o r d he w i s h e d . feel like permitted Shaw to put Shaw c o m p l a i n e d g e n e r a l l y : I can g e t a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l t r i a l . " (RDA, R. 86.) When a s k e d why, Shaw s a i d h i s b e l i e f was b a s e d on " 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 [sic] the misconduct." trial denied. judge (RDA, R. 86.) recuse himself; Shaw f u r t h e r r e q u e s t e d ... [and] p r o s e c u t i o n a l Shaw a l s o r e q u e s t e d a motion a continuance o b t a i n a t r a n s c r i p t from a f e d e r a l t r i a l , was d e n i e d . that continuance retained else 3 Winston Durant on h i s b e h a l f to represent even Shaw. t o s a y , Shaw a g a i n had When a s k e d stated only u n t i l he c o u l d Shaw p o i n t e d o u t already though court and t h e continuance When r e q u e s t i n g t h e c o n t i n u a n c e , attorney the t r i a l that Durant obtained one had n o t been i f he h a d a n y t h i n g generally that "I just It appears that Shaw sued t h e Montgomery Police D e p a r t m e n t i n f e d e r a l c o u r t as a r e s u l t o f h i s a r r e s t on t h e charges g i v i n g r i s e t o h i s c o n v i c t i o n s . 3 14 CR-12-0674 c a n ' t g e t no f a i r t r i a l . That's a l l I've g o t t o say. I a i n ' t g o i n g t o be a b l e t o g e t a f a i r t r i a l . " (RDA, R. 89.) After f u r t h e r c o m p l a i n i n g about t h e l a c k o f t h e t r a n s c r i p t from t h e federal t r i a l , Shaw t h e n p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e t r i a l n o t y e t r u l e d on t h e m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s . The t r i a l c o u r t had court then denied the motion t o suppress. A f t e r the d e n i a l of the motion t o suppress, P i t t e r s p u t on t h e r e c o r d t h a t D u r a n t , a l t h o u g h n o t h i r e d b y Shaw, s h a r e d office space apparently with free h i m a n d was h e l p i n g of charge. Pitters him w i t h then indicated Shaw d i d n o t want D u r a n t t o h e l p w i t h t h e t r i a l , request t h a t Durant trial court about leave the courtroom. h i s "problem" with the t r i a l , that i f Pitters would When a s k e d b y t h e Durant, the following occurred: " [ S h a w ] : Y o u r Honor, I r e a l l y f e e l l i k e I s h o u l d t a l k t o my f a m i l y a b o u t g e t t i n g me a l a w y e r . I'm t a l k i n g about f o r r e a l . T h a t ' s t h e way I f e e l b e c a u s e I d o n ' t f e e l l i k e I'm g o i n g t o g e t a f a i r trial. I'm t a l k i n g a b o u t a n d t h e n my a t t o r n e y -- t o t e l l t h e t r u t h -- i s a l o t t h a t ' s g o i n g on t h a t I r e a l l y d o n ' t -- s i n c e c o m i n g o v e r t h e r e a n d s e e i n g me, t a l k i n g about a trial -- I r e a l l y wasn't p r e p a r e d f o r no t r i a l t o d a y . And I haven't c a l l e d my f o l k s y e t . B u t t h e n t h e r e ' s a c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n d e a l i n g w i t h my a c c o u n t s -¬ "THE COURT: -- Mr. Shaw, l e t me s a y t h i s t o y o u . Mr. D u r a n t i s h e r e a t t h e r e q u e s t , I assume, o f Mr. 15 CR-12-0674 Pitters. Mr. D u r a n t h a s t r i e d more c a s e s i n t h i s c o u r t r o o m t h a n any l a w y e r . A n d I t h i n k h e ' s one o f the b e s t l a w y e r s I've seen. I f y o u want h i s a s s i s t a n c e , he's here t o h e l p you. I f you don't want h i m h e r e , h e ' l l go away. But don't s i t here and t e l l me a b o u t -- Y o u ' r e c o m p l a i n i n g about ineffective assistance o f c o u n s e l where you're s i t t i n g t h e r e , you've g o t two e x p e r i e n c e d l a w y e r s s i t t i n g t h e r e a t y o u r s i d e . Make up y o u r m i n d , man. " [ S h a w ] : Y o u r Honor, I'm t h i n k I need a n o t h e r l a w y e r . "THE talking -- I COURT: W e l l , y o u ' r e n o t g o i n g t o g e t o n e . " [ S h a w ] : You t h e J u d g e , Y o u r "THE about Honor. COURT: I t ' s b e e n two y e a r s now. "Now do y o u want Mr. D u r a n t t o be i n h e r e you o r n o t ? with " [ S h a w ] : W e l l , I'm t a l k i n g a b o u t , i f we're g o i n g t o have a k a n g a r o o c o u r t , y o u c a n have who y o u want put i n here. "THE COURT: W e l l , i t ' s n o t up t o me. " [ S h a w ] : I'm t a l k i n g a b o u t , I'm b e i n g f o r c e d t o t a k e l a w y e r s -¬ "THE COURT: I d i d n ' t h i r e Mr. P i t t e r s . "[Shaw]: "THE I know. My f a m i l y d i d . COURT: Okay. " [ S h a w ] : My f a m i l y d i d , Y o u r Honor. A n d i f I'm g o i n g t o be f o r c e d t o t a k e an a t t o r n e y t o go t o t r i a l t h a t I don't f e e l c o m f o r t a b l e going t o t r i a l and d o n ' t f e e l l i k e I c a n g e t a f a i r t r i a l t h e n , y o u know, y o u ' r e t h e j u d g e . I c a n ' t buck a g a i n s t you. 16 CR-12-0674 "THE COURT: The o n l y q u e s t i o n I have f o r y o u r i g h t now, Mr. Shaw, w i t h r e g a r d t o Mr. D u r a n t , do you want h i m h e r e t o a s s i s t you? Or do y o u n o t want h i m h e r e t o a s s i s t you? Or y o u d o n ' t c a r e , one way of t h e o t h e r ? " [ S h a w ] : Y o u r Honor, y o u know what, I f e e l I s h o u l d g e t me a n o t h e r l a w y e r . "THE Mr. Shaw. COURT: W e l l , that's n o t g o i n g t o happen, So h e r e a r e y o u r c h o i c e s -¬ "[Shaw]: -- y o u c a n j u s t l e t b o t h o f them s t a y h e r e b e c a u s e I c a n ' t g e t no f a i r t r i a l , (RDA, like Your Honor." R. 91-93.) The selected jury was t h e n b r o u g h t sworn, and r e c e s s e d f o r l u n c h . o c c u r r e d : " [ S h a w ] : Y o u r Honor, b e f o r e y o u go [ t o l u n c h ] ? "THE into the courtroom, At that point, the following c a n I show y o u a l e t t e r COURT: A l l r i g h t . " [ S h a w ] : T h i s was t h e s i t u a t i o n t h a t I t r i e d t o a d d r e s s a l o n g t i m e ago. T h i s i s a l e t t e r f r o m Mr. P i t t e r s t o my f o l k s (indicating). And I a i n ' t g e t t i n g no f a i r -¬ "THE COURT: -- I t e l l y o u what, Mr. Shaw, i f y o u ' l l show i t t o me a t a b o u t 1:20, I ' l l l o o k a t i t . "[Shaw]: A l l r i g h t . I ' l l have i t f o r y o u t h e n , Your Honor, where Mr. P i t t e r s ' s services were t e r m i n a t e d way b a c k i n May." 17 CR-12-0674 (RDA, R. 94-95). reasserted The record indicates that any o b j e c t i o n o r r e q u e s t r e l a t i n g The l e t t e r t o w h i c h Shaw was a p p a r e n t l y never to the l e t t e r . referring i s included i n t h e r e c o r d f r o m Shaw's d i r e c t a p p e a l . P i t t e r s t o Shaw's s i s t e r , Shaw In the l e t t e r , from P i t t e r s s t a t e d t h a t a t a h e a r i n g on May 27, 2008, s e v e r a l d e f e n s e m o t i o n s h a d b e e n d e n i e d " t o t h e displeasure o f your b r o t h e r . " (RDA, C. 114.) Pitters then s t a t e d t h a t "Mr. Shaw d e m o n s t r a t e d h i s d i s p l e a s u r e b y a l o u d outburst [and] v e r b a l a t t a c k disparaging comments of on me a n d t h e c o u r t , racial slurs" and that " s t a t e d t h a t he was t e r m i n a t i n g my s e r v i c e s . " Pitters also stated i n the l e t t e r , s c h e d u l e d t o s e e Shaw a g a i n however, including Shaw (RDA, C. 114.) that he P i t t e r s r e a s s e r t e d , b a s e d on Shaw's c o n d u c t , t h a t Shaw was i n c o m p e t e n t t o s t a n d t r i a l . determined that Shaw was, i n f a c t , t h e c o u r t ' s d e a l i n g s w i t h Shaw. "MR. PITTERS: e n t e r t a i n a plea? was on May 29, 2008. Following the lunch recess, court had Judge, c o m p e t e n t b a s e d on The f o l l o w i n g t h e n are you inclined occurred: to "THE COURT: I w i l l . " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : T h e r e ' s no o f f e r at t h i s p o i n t . 18 The from t h e S t a t e CR-12-0674 "THE COURT: W e l l , l e t ' s r e c o n s i d e r . "(Pause i n the proceedings.) "THE COURT: A r e we r e a d y t o go, g u y s ? "MR. PITTERS: Okay. Judge, w e ' l l go f o r w a r d . " [ S h a w ] : I want t o g e t me a n o t h e r l a w y e r . I want a n o t h e r l a w y e r . I done a s k e d f o r a n o t h e r l a w y e r two o r t h r e e t i m e s . A n d y o u ' r e f o r c i n g me t o keep h i m . I d o n ' t want h i m no more. I a s k e d you a thousand times. "THE COURT: Mr. Shaw, a l l h e ' s d o i n g i s p r e s e n t i n g y o u an o f f e r . I t ' s up t o y o u w h e t h e r t o take i tor not take i t . " (RDA, R. 9 8 - 9 9 ) . A t t h i s p o i n t i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , Shaw b e g a n c o m p l a i n i n g t h a t t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s i n v o l v e d i n t h e case had lied and had b l i n d e d h i m i n one e y e . The f o l l o w i n g occurred: " [ S h a w ] : G e t me o u t o f t h e s t a t e o f A l a b a m a . T h a t ' s what t h e y n e e d t o be d o i n g . A n d t h e y n e e d t o be d o i n g i t t o d a y . "THE COURT: Mr. Shaw, y o u ' r e n o t g e t t i n g o u t o f the s t a t e o f Alabama today. "[Shaw]: Sir? "THE COURT: Y o u ' r e n o t g e t t i n g o u t o f t h e s t a t e of A l a b a m a t o d a y . Do y o u want t o go t o t r i a l o r not? " [ S h a w ] : I d o n ' t c a r e what y o u do, Y o u r Honor. Do i t l i k e y o u want t o do i t . " 19 then CR-12-0674 (R. 101.) the The j u r y was t h e n b r o u g h t i n t o t h e c o u r t r o o m , trial c o u r t gave i t s p r e l i m i n a r y i n s t r u c t i o n s . At that p o i n t , Shaw r e q u e s t e d t o be t a k e n b a c k t o h i s j a i l c e l l they can j u s t trial have t h i s court denied After opening in-chief. trial without me." and "[a]nd (R. 104.) The Shaw's r e q u e s t . statements, Pitters the State presented ably represented i t s case¬ Shaw, m a k i n g o b j e c t i o n s and c r o s s - e x a m i n i n g w i t n e s s e s a n d , a t one p o i n t , r e q u e s t i n g t o recall one of the State's witnesses examination a t Shaw's s u g g e s t i o n . conference, Shaw a g a i n requested 4 for further Just before cross- the charge t h a t he be a l l o w e d time t o o b t a i n t h e t r a n s c r i p t from t h e f e d e r a l t r i a l t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t the police officers b l i n d e d him. i n v o l v e d i n t h e case The t r i a l had l i e d and had court denied the request. A f t e r t h e S t a t e r e s t e d and t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i s c u s s e d w i t h Shaw h i s right asserted that to t e s t i f y he had or not t o t e s t i f y , received ineffective Shaw again assistance of c o u n s e l , a t w h i c h p o i n t t h e t r i a l c o u r t a l l o w e d Shaw t o c o n f e r with Pitters. A f t e r a b r i e f pause, the f o l l o w i n g Because the w i t n e s s had a l r e a d y l e f t , request. 4 the 20 occurred: the court refused CR-12-0674 " [ S h a w ] : Y o u r Honor, I f e e l l i k e i t ' s a t o t a l b r e a k d o w n b e t w e e n me a n d my a t t o r n e y as I s t i p u l a t e d yesterday at the beginning of t h i s t r i a l that I f e l t like I needed another attorney. I needed a c o n t i n u a n c e , Y o u r Honor. B u t t h e c a s e done went t h i s f a r . And t h e r e ' s s t i l l a b r e a k d o w n b e t w e e n me and my a t t o r n e y . I'm t a l k i n g a b o u t , I a i n ' t f e e l i n g l i k e I'm b e i n g p r o p e r l y r e p r e s e n t e d b y Mr. P i t t e r s f o r t h e money my f o l k s gave -- I d o n ' t f e e l l i k e I ' v e b e e n p r o p e r l y r e p r e s e n t e d b y h i m a t a l l . You understand? "And as f a r as i t ' s g o i n g now, y o u ' r e t h e J u d g e . I asked you y e s t e r d a y a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t r i a l , Y o u r Honor, i f I c o u l d g e t a n o t h e r l a w y e r a n d g e t a continuance. You d e n i e d me g e t t i n g me another lawyer. I can't represent myself. I'm t a l k i n g a b o u t , i f I c o u l d have r e p r e s e n t e d m y s e l f , I c o u l d r e a l l y t e l l t h e t r u t h , e v e r y t h i n g -- I r e q u e s t e d o f t h e C o u r t , I a s k e d you y e s t e r d a y , Y o u r Honor, c o u l d I g e t me a n o t h e r lawyer and g e t a continuance b e c a u s e t h e y done p u t me i n a p o s i t i o n where t h e r e q u e s t e d -- A t t o r n e y W i n s t o n D u r a n t come on r e c o r d and a s k e d f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e t h a t I m i g h t have t h e t r a n s c r i p t s from t h e F e d e r a l t r i a l . Okay. They come b a c k a n d p u t t h a t o f f u n t i l t h e 6 t h . We r u s h i n g t h e t r i a l u n t i l -- We come b a c k on t h e 6 t h . I r e q u e s t e d t h a t I be a b l e t o g e t me an a t t o r n e y a n d t h e n a c o n t i n u a n c e b e c a u s e t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t done a l r e a d y g r a n t e d me an o p p o r t u n i t y t o g e t t h e s e t r a n s c r i p t s w h i c h t h e C o u r t a l l o w e d them t o p u t o f f on F e b r u a r y 4 t h . A n d now we're i n t h e f i x -- a t r i a l -- a n d t h e b r e a k d o w n a i n ' t j u s t s t a r t e d now. It started at the beginning of t h i s t r i a l , Your Honor. I'm t a l k i n g a b o u t when I a s k e d Y o u r Honor -¬ l i k e I was t e l l i n g y o u -- t h a t on t h i s c a s e a b o u t you -- A n d I d o n ' t want t o be f i g h t i n g a g a i n s t you and y o u r daddy [ t h e j u d g e who p r e s i d e d o v e r t h e f e d e r a l t r i a l ] a n d a l l them. B u t t h e y ' r e p u t t i n g me i n a p o s i t i o n , I a i n ' t g o t no more c h o i c e . The f o l k s done b l i n d e d me. I'm n o t f i x i n g t o l a y down -- I r e q u e s t e d an a t t o r n e y t h a t my f o l k s m i g h t be 21 CR-12-0674 a b l e t o a f f o r d one t h a t I c a n f i g h t i t . A n d t h e y done gave h i m $8, 000. A n d he a i n ' t d o i n g s u c h a g r e a t j o b . Do you u n d e r s t a n d me? "Now I a s k e d y o u y e s t e r d a y t h a t I m i g h t have a c o n t i n u a n c e t h a t I c o u l d g e t me an a t t o r n e y b e c a u s e I t h i n k my f o l k s c a n g e t me one b e c a u s e t h e y g o t him. A n d t h e n t h e y done p u t me i n a p o s i t i o n where t h e y r e c r u i t e d -- i t w a s n ' t even -¬ "THE COURT: -- Mr. Shaw, l e t me a s k y o u something. You're over t h e r e i n t h e county j a i l ; right? "[Shaw]: "THE years. Yes, COURT: "[Shaw]: sir. Been sitting Yes, s i r , j u s t over there f o r two about. "THE COURT: A r e n ' t y o u r e a d y t o g e t t h a t over with? " [ S h a w ] : I'm r e a d y t o g e t i t o v e r w i t h . i s on t h e l i n e . " (RDA, R. 230-32.) right to testify, up h i s motion attorney. After further regarding h i s Shaw t h e n s t a t e d " I h a d a d v i s e d h i m t o draw t o withdraw, he T h a t ' s what I n e e d . " not s p e c i f i c a l l y discussion My l i f e rule didn't -- I need another (RDA, R. 234.) The c o u r t d i d on t h e r e q u e s t , b u t a c k n o w l e d g e d that Shaw was unhappy w i t h h i s a t t o r n e y . The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that " [ i ] na l l c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s , the accused 22 CR-12-0674 shall for e n j o y t h e r i g h t ... t o have t h e A s s i s t a n c e h i s defence." "Comprehended right to assistance assistance choosing." 2010) . of counsel w i t h i n t h e S i x t h Amendment i s the r i g h t to the e f f e c t i v e and t h e r i g h t t o c o u n s e l o f one's the r i g h t to counsel See Wheat v. U n i t e d States, of choice 486 U.S. i s not 153, 159 (1988) ("The S i x t h Amendment r i g h t t o c h o o s e one's own is circumscribed either counsel i n s e v e r a l i m p o r t a n t r e s p e c t s . " ) ; and Lane, 80 So. 3d a t 295 ("The r i g h t t o c o u n s e l initially own Lane v. S t a t e , 80 So. 3d 280, 294 ( A l a . C r i m . App. However, absolute. of counsel of Counsel or continued f o r indigent representation of choice -- e i t h e r -- i s n o t a b s o l u t e or nonindigent defendants."). -¬ "Rather, t h i s C o u r t has h e l d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l of h i s c h o i c e must be b a l a n c e d a g a i n s t t h e n e e d f o r t h e e f f i c i e n t a n d e f f e c t i v e administration of j u s t i c e . " 2d Hamm v. S t a t e , 913 So. 460, 472 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . Initially, petition does we that neither at t r i a l he was indigent Shaw a r g u e t h a t wanted t h e t r i a l counsel. note court t o appoint counsel Rather, at t r i a l , have h i s f a m i l y h i r e nor i n h i s and t h a t to replace he retained Shaw i n d i c a t e d t h a t he w a n t e d t o another lawyer 23 and i n h i s p e t i t i o n he CR-12-0674 a l l e g e d t h a t he w a n t e d t o " o b t a i n " a n o t h e r lawyer. Thus, i t a p p e a r s t h a t Shaw m e r e l y w a n t e d t o f i r e h i s r e t a i n e d c o u n s e l , Pitters, and h i r e new That b e i n g problems w i t h 2009 t r i a l , then, counsel to represent said, Shaw a l l e g e d i n h i s p e t i t i o n Pitters at the Shaw had began almost June ample need the trial i n d i g e n t defendant, a year 2008 s u p p r e s s i o n time P i t t e r s and t o r e t a i n new not him. before the before hearing. trial approval to do Or.App. 491, v. M a r t i n e z , 224 ("Defendant did discharge his 494, in People 932 P.2d 65, Or.App. 588, not need As v. P e c o r a r o , 67 591, the to Ill.2d 957, court's attorney the I l l i n o i s 144 P.2d See "Unlike lawyer Keerins, 959 (2008) permission before N.E.2d 942 to retaining explained (1991): " I t was not w i t h i n the t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u b r i c of a u t h o r i t y t o a d v i s e o r e x e r c i s e any i n f l u e n c e o r c o n t r o l o v e r t h e s e l e c t i o n o f c o u n s e l by d e f e n d a n t , who was a b l e t o , and d i d , c h o o s e c o u n s e l on h i s own accord. ( P e o p l e v. W a l s h ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 28 I l l . 2 d 405, 409, 192 N.E.2d 843.) Moreover, the t r i a l judge c o u l d not f o r c e defendant t o r e t a i n counsel other t h a n t h a t c h o s e n by d e f e n d a n t . ( P e o p l e v. J o h n s o n 24 an also State Supreme C o u r t 1, 578 fire and he d i d S t a t e v. (1996). 198 trial court-appointed private counsel."). began so. April Clearly a p e r s o n w i t h t h e means t o r e t a i n a n e e d n o t o b t a i n c o u r t a p p r o v a l t o do s o . " 145 the c o u n s e l t o r e p r e s e n t him, court's that his CR-12-0674 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 75 I l l . 2 d 180, 185, 25 I l l . D e c . 812, 387 N.E.2d 688.) D e f e n d a n t a n d h i s c o u n s e l were t h e o n l y p a r t i e s who c o u l d have a l t e r e d t h e i r a t t o r n e y client relationship." 144 I l l . 2 d a t 15, 579 N.E.2d a t 948. trial b e g a n , Shaw c o u l d have f i r e d counsel. sister t h a t Shaw t h r e a t e n e d h i r e a new a t t o r n e y . through indication preceding complain when Pitters a n d r e t a i n e d new I n d e e d , t h e May 2008 l e t t e r P i t t e r s w r o t e t o Shaw's reflects follow A t any t i m e b e f o r e h i s that on h i s threat. took The any s t e p s record have, h i s right a t any t i m e and t o Shaw d i d n o t contains no a t a l l i n t h e months t o o b t a i n new c o u n s e l . t h a t he was d e n i e d Shaw c o u l d Pitters Y e t , f o r whatever reason, Shaw his trial to fire Shaw c a n n o t t o counsel before now of choice his trial, fired P i t t e r s a n d h i r e d new c o u n s e l b u t f a i l e d t o do s o . M o r e o v e r , Shaw's r e q u e s t , a f t e r h i s t r i a l b e g a n , t h a t he be permitted to retain motion t o s u b s t i t u t e "untimely under new c o u n s e l was c l e a r l y u n t i m e l y . c o u n s e l made t h e f i r s t a l l b u t t h e most exigent A day o f t r i a l i s circumstances." U n i t e d S t a t e s , v. C o r p o r a n - C u e v a s , 35 F.3d 953, 956 ( 4 t h C i r . 1994). (6th See a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s v. T r u j i l l o , 376 F.3d 593, 606 C i r . 2004) ( m o t i o n f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n o f c o u n s e l t h r e e d a y s before t r i a l i s set to begin i s untimely). 25 " I t i s w i t h i n the CR-12-0674 trial c o u r t ' s sound d i s c r e t i o n t o r e f u s e t o a l l o w a defendant to d i s m i s s h i s a t t o r n e y a f t e r t h e t r i a l h a s commenced." v. S t a t e , 340 So. 2d 1142, Hayes 1143 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 7 6 ) . As a l r e a d y n o t e d , "[a] d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l o f h i s c h o i c e must be b a l a n c e d effective 472. against t h e need administration of justice." In Lovin v. S t a t e , T e n n e s s e e Supreme C o u r t f o r the e f f i c i e n t and Hamm, 913 So. 2 d a t 286 S.W.3d 275 (Tenn. 2009), t h e explained: "When a p r i s o n e r d e s i r e s t o d i s c h a r g e a r e t a i n e d l a w y e r , t h e a p p r o p r i a t e f o c u s i s on b a l a n c i n g t h e p r i s o n e r ' s r i g h t t o discharge h i s o r h e r lawyer a g a i n s t the c o u r t ' s o b l i g a t i o n t o a d m i n i s t e r j u s t i c e e f f i c i e n t l y by a v o i d i n g unreasonable d e l a y . People v. O r t i z , 275 C a l . R p t r . 1 9 1 , 800 P.2d a t 552-53; J a c k s o n v . S t a t e , 979 So. 2d 442, 444 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . App. 2008) . A p r i s o n e r ' s e x e r c i s e o f h i s o r h e r r i g h t t o discharge h i s o r her lawyer c a n n o t be p e r m i t t e d t o 'unduly h i n d e r t h e f a i r , e f f i c i e n t and orderly administration of justice.' United States v. P a n z a r d i A l v a r e z , 816 F.2d 813, 816 ( 1 s t C i r . 1987) (citations omitted). Thus, t h e c o u r t s s h o u l d not permit prisoners t o use t h e i r ability to d i s c h a r g e t h e i r r e t a i n e d lawyer as a t a c t i c a l p l o y to d i s r u p t and d e l a y o r d e r l y j u d i c i a l proceedings. S t a t e v . C h a d w i c k , 224 Tenn. 75, 78-80, 450 S.W.2d 568, 570 ( 1 9 7 0 ) ; S t a t e v . Z y l a , 628 S.W.2d 39, 41-42 (Tenn. C r i m . App. 1 9 8 1 ) ; s e e a l s o T y l e r v . S t a t e , 945 So. 2d 662, 664 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . " 286 S.W.3d a t 286. his request Although Shaw a l l e g e d i n h i s p e t i t i o n t o r e t a i n new c o u n s e l delaying his t r i a l , that was n o t f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f t h o s e p o r t i o n s o f t h e r e c o r d q u o t e d above 26 CR-12-0674 indicate otherwise. Indeed, i t i s c l e a r from the r e c o r d that Shaw c o n t r i v e d a d i s p u t e b e t w e e n h i m a n d P i t t e r s i n an a t t e m p t to delay h i s t r i a l . to counsel Therefore, Shaw was n o t d e n i e d his right of choice. B. Shaw a l s o r e a s s e r t s on a p p e a l c l a i m ( 2 ) , as s e t o u t above -- t h a t h i s s e n t e n c e s v i o l a t e p r i n c i p l e s o f d o u b l e - j e o p a r d y . He a r g u e s on a p p e a l , as he d i d i n h i s p e t i t i o n , o r i g i n a l l y s e n t e n c e d t o 27 y e a r s ' t h a t he was imprisonment f o r the f i r s t - d e g r e e - t h e f t and t r a f f i c k i n g - i n - s t o l e n - i d e n t i t i e s c o n v i c t i o n s , and to 5 years' imprisonment conviction and f o r each instrument convictions, f o r the of the with possession-of-cocaine possession-of-a-forged- a l l the sentences to run c o n c u r r e n t l y , b u t t h a t f o u r days a f t e r t h e o r i g i n a l sentences were i m p o s e d , t h e t r i a l sentences court i n c r e a s e d h i s 5-year t o 10-year s e n t e n c e s and o r d e r e d t h a t t h o s e s e n t e n c e s were t o r u n c o n s e c u t i v e l y t o t h e two 2 7 - y e a r s e n t e n c e s , t h u s r e s u l t i n g in h i s being punished R e l y i n g on S h i v e n e r 2006), and o t h e r twice f o r each of h i s convictions. v. S t a t e , 958 So. 2d 913 ( A l a . C r i m . App. similar cases h o l d i n g t h a t a t r i a l court i s not a u t h o r i z e d t o i n c r e a s e a d e f e n d a n t ' s s e n t e n c e a f t e r i t has 27 CR-12-0674 entered a valid sentence, Shaw argues that once the trial c o u r t s e n t e n c e d h i m on May 14, 2009, i t h a d no a u t h o r i t y , f o u r days l a t e r on May 18, 2009, t o i n c r e a s e t h e v a l i d l y sentences. The T h i s argument i s m e r i t l e s s . r e c o r d from Shaw's d i r e c t appeal jury returned i t sverdicts finding on A p r i l notice 7, 2009. of appeal convictions ineffective. On A p r i l stating because, 5 he On A p r i l f r o m r e p r e s e n t i n g Shaw. April imposed said, he on A p r i l motion t o withdraw wanted Pitters on a l l c o u n t s to a p r o se appeal h i s counsel had 2 1 , 2009, t h e t r i a l i n the c i r c u i t court granted a n d a p p o i n t e d new c o u n s e l [Shaw] i n t h e a p p e a l o f t h i s m a t t e r . " been moved t o w i t h d r a w I n an o r d e r d a t e d b y t h e t r i a l 17, 2009, b u t s t a m p e d as f i l e d office that the Shaw f i l e d his trial 2 1 , 2009, 6 Shaw g u i l t y 14, 2009, that reflects court clerk's Pitters's "to represent (RDA, C. 1 1 8 . ) 7 On May The n o t i c e was s t a m p e d as f i l e d i n t h e c i r c u i t c l e r k ' s o f f i c e on A p r i l 14, 2009, b u t was d a t e d b y Shaw A p r i l 12, 2009. 5 The m o t i o n i s b o t h d a t e d b y P i t t e r s A p r i l 2 1 , 2009, a n d s t a m p e d as f i l e d i n t h e c i r c u i t c l e r k ' s o f f i c e on A p r i l 2 1 , 2009. 6 I t i s u n c l e a r f r o m t h e r e c o r d why t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t i s s u e d an o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w f o u r d a y s b e f o r e t h e m o t i o n was f i l e d . 7 28 CR-12-0674 14, 2009, also Shaw a p p e a r e d appeared at f o r a sentencing the sentencing hearing. hearing Pitters purportedly r e p r e s e n t i n g Shaw a n d m a k i n g a r g u m e n t s on Shaw's b e h a l f . trial court sentenced possession-of-cocaine of-a-forged-instrument imprisonment c o n v i c t i o n and each o f the p o s s e s s i o n convictions convictions, and run c o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h each Immediately following imprisonment f o r the and f o r the f i r s t - d e g r e e - t h e f t stolen-identities sentences Shaw t o 5 y e a r s ' The to 27 years' and t r a f f i c k i n g - i n - ordered that a l l other. following the imposition of sentence, the occurred: "MR. PITTERS: I w o u l d a s k t h e C o u r t t o -- t h e r e i s an i s s u e h e r e w i t h r e s p e c t t o -- I ' v e p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d a M o t i o n t o W i t h d r a w . Mr. Shaw h a s -- f o r a l l p r a c t i c a l p u r p o s e s h a s -- b e e n a s k i n g f o r me t o withdraw from t h i s case. When t h e v e r d i c t was a n n o u n c e d , he gave o r a l n o t i c e o f a p p e a l -- The A l a b a m a C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s -- W e ' l l have t o wait u n t i l sentencing. So a t t h i s t i m e , I ' l l s o r t of r e - f i l e o r a l l y and ask t h e Court f o r l e a v e t o withdraw. I was r e t a i n e d -¬ "THE COURT: f i l e a w r i t t e n m o t i o n , p l e a s e . Have you a l r e a d y f i l e d a w r i t t e n m o t i o n ? "MR. PITTERS: Y e s , I d i d . "THE COURT: Okay. W e l l , i t w i l l be g r a n t e d . And we w i l l a p p o i n t Mr. Shaw a n o t h e r a t t o r n e y u n l e s s he w a n t s t o h i r e h i s own. 29 the CR-12-0674 "[Shaw]: something. Your Honor, I would like t o say "THE COURT: A l l r i g h t . " [ S h a w ] : You s e n t an o r d e r o v e r t o me t h a t I g o t a c o p y o f i t t h a t s t a t e d t h a t on t h e 1 7 t h t h a t Mr. P i t t e r s had withdrew then. I'm q u e s t i o n i n g , how he come b a c k t o be r e p r e s e n t i n g me now? I mean, you o r d e r e d t h a t he w i t h d r e w on t h e 1 7 t h . A n d I'm w o n d e r i n g , how he come t o be r e p r e s e n t i n g me now? I'm t a l k i n g a b o u t a t s e n t e n c i n g . You know, I'm t a l k i n g a b o u t -¬ "THE J U D I C I A L ASSISTANT: I may be a b l e t o c l a r i f y t h a t a l i t t l e b i t f o r Mr. Shaw. Mr. P i t t e r s was a l l o w e d t o w i t h d r a w as t o y o u r a p p e a l . You f i l e d an a p p e a l . " [ S h a w ] : I f Mr. P i t t e r s w i t h d r e w , he w i t h d r e w , p e r i o d , b e c a u s e my f o l k s p a i d h i m $8,500, I mean, t o r e p r e s e n t me. I f he w i t h d r e w on t h e 1 7 t h , he f i l e d a motion. The C o u r t g r a n t e d h i s m o t i o n . He shouldn't have b e e n h e r e r e p r e s e n t i n g me now. T h a t ' s t h e way I l o o k -- I t h i n k t h a t ' s t h e way t h e l a w s h o u l d go. I f he w i t h d r e w on t h e 1 7 t h f r o m my c a s e a n d t h e n he come b a c k t h i s m o r n i n g t o r e p r e s e n t me, how i s t h a t ? How a r e y o u g o i n g t o r e p r e s e n t ? How a r e y o u g o i n g t o w i t h d r e w on t h e 1 8 t h a n d t h e n come b a c k a n d r e p r e s e n t me when y o u f e e l like r e p r e s e n t i n g me -¬ "THE COURT: -- do you want me t o a p p o i n t y o u another a t t o r n e y f o r your sentencing? "[Shaw]: I would l i k e "THE COURT: Okay. Monday. Mr. "Ms. B a t t l e - H o d g e , Shaw on Monday. that. W e ' l l do t h e s e n t e n c i n g next you're appointed t o represent 30 CR-12-0674 "MS. BATTLE-HODGE: Thank y o u , Y o u r Honor. "MR. PITTERS: May I be e x c u s e d ? "THE COURT: A l l r i g h t . " (RDA, R. 288-90.) The p r o c e e d i n g s were a d j o u r n e d u n t i l May 18, 2009, a t w h i c h p o i n t a s e c o n d s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g was h e l d , d u r i n g w h i c h J u r a l d i n e B a t t l e - H o d g e r e p r e s e n t e d Shaw a n d made a r g u m e n t s on Shaw's b e h a l f . the trial the possession-of-cocaine A t the second s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , c o u r t s e n t e n c e d Shaw t o 10 y e a r s ' i m p r i s o n m e n t f o r conviction possession-of-a-forged-instrument years' imprisonment for the trafficking-in-stolen-identities the five 10-year and convictions increase to 27 and c o n v i c t i o n s , and o r d e r e d t h a t sentences run c o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h each o t h e r Shaw i s c o r r e c t i t cannot, compelling and of the first-degree-theft b u t r u n c o n s e c u t i v e l y t o t h e two 2 7 - y e a r entered, f o r each that "[o]nce a v a l i d i n t h e absence r e a s o n , be a l t e r e d the s e v e r i t y convictions. of anytime of the sentence." s e n t e n c e has been fraud or thereafter another so as t o Ex p a r t e T i c e , So. 2d 590, 591-92 ( A l a . 1984) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . 475 "Increasing a v a l i d s e n t e n c e a f t e r a d e f e n d a n t h a s commenced s e r v i n g t h e sentence v i o l a t e s the p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t double jeopardy i n 31 CR-12-0674 b o t h t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s and Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n s . " S n e l l v. State, (emphasis 723 So. 2d 105, 108 added). ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1998) However, as t h i s C o u r t e x p l a i n e d i n B r y a n t v . S t a t e , 29 So. 3d 928 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 9 ) : " ' [ A ] n i n c r e a s e i n s e n t e n c e where t h e [ p r e v i o u s ] s e n t e n c e i s v o i d i s t h e "most common e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l r u l e p r o h i b i t i n g enhancement o f an i m p o s e d s e n t e n c e . " ' C l i n e v. S t a t e , 571 So. 2d 368, 369-70 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 0 ) , q u o t i n g A. C a m p b e l l , Law o f S e n t e n c i n g § 59 ( 1 9 7 8 ) . ' [ I ] n c o r r e c t i n g an i l l e g a l sentence, the double jeopardy p r o t e c t i o n i s n o t v i o l a t e d e v e n i f t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s begun s e r v i n g the o r i g i n a l sentence.' I d . a t 370 (emphasis a d d e d [in B r y a n t ] ) . '"[E]ven a f t e r t h e defendant has begun t o s e r v e h i s s e n t e n c e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s o b l i g a t e d t o a l t e r an i n v a l i d s e n t e n c e ; f u r t h e r , any i n c r e a s e i n t h e s e n t e n c e does n o t r a i s e double jeopardy problems."' G r e e n h i l l v. S t a t e , 746 So. 2d 1064, 1072 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999) (emphasis a d d e d [ i n B r y a n t ] ), q u o t i n g L o v e v. S t a t e , 681 So. 2d 1108, 1109 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . See a l s o B o z z a v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 330 U.S. 160, 67 S . C t . 645, 91 L.Ed. 818 ( 1 9 4 7 ) , a n d Hughes v. S t a t e , 518 So. 2d 890 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 7 ) . " 29 So. 3d a t 937. In this case, the o r i g i n a l May 14, 2009, were n o t v a l i d represented hearing. by counsel sentences sentences during that i m p o s e d on Shaw on b e c a u s e Shaw was n o t original sentencing As Shaw h i m s e l f a r g u e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t a t t h e May 14, 2009, s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , c o u n s e l who was p r e s e n t a t t h a t h e a r i n g had a l r e a d y withdrawn from r e p r e s e n t i n g him and, t h u s , 32 CR-12-0674 Shaw was, i n e f f e c t , is well during (Ala. settled that sentencing." Crim. without counsel during that hearing. " [ a ] defendant has a r i g h t Tarver App. 2 0 0 6 ) . v. S t a t e , "Unless It to counsel 985 So. 2d 494, 494 a d e f e n d a n t has o r waives a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l , t h e S i x t h Amendment i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l bar t o a v a l i d c o n v i c t i o n and sentence." So. 2d 127, 130 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . B e r r y v . S t a t e , 630 " [ I ] t i s the lack of c o u n s e l , c o u p l e d w i t h t h e absence o f a knowing and i n t e l l i g e n t w a i v e r t h e r e o f , t h a t a c t s t o deny t h e d e f e n d a n t c o u n s e l a n d t o jurisdictionally bar h i s " sentence. Coughlin So. 2d 30, 33 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . is denied illegal. 1983) counsel at sentencing, I f a c r i m i n a l defendant the r e s u l t i n g sentence is See Ex p a r t e A n d e r s o n , 434 So. 2d 737, 737-38 ( A l a . (where d e f e n d a n t was d e n i e d sentence v. S t a t e , 842 was necessary). erroneous and a counsel at sentencing, the new sentencing B e c a u s e Shaw was e f f e c t i v e l y denied hearing was counsel at t h e o r i g i n a l May 14, 2009, s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , t h e s e n t e n c e s imposed at that hearing jurisdiction. was not only Therefore, were illegal resentencing p e r m i s s i b l e b u t was 33 and v o i d f o r lack of Shaw f o u r d a y s required later to correct the CR-12-0674 illegality i n the o r i g i n a l sentencing and d i d n o t v i o l a t e double-jeopardy p r i n c i p l e s . C. Shaw f u r t h e r reasserts on a p p e a l claim ( 4 ) , as s e t o u t above -- t h a t h i s c o n v i c t i o n s f o r f i r s t - d e g r e e t h e f t a n d f o u r counts of possession jeopardy p r i n c i p l e s . R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , the of a forged instrument v i o l a t e d double- He a r g u e s on a p p e a l , that the currency t h e f t c h a r g e was o b t a i n e d of-a-forged-instrument as he d i d i n h i s t h a t formed t h e b a s i s o f as a r e s u l t o f t h e p o s s e s s i o n - charges and that, thus, c h a r g e s a r o s e f r o m t h e same a c t o r o m i s s i o n , for a l l five jeopardy. It divided violated This i s well into his right t o be a l l five and c o n v i c t i o n s free from double argument i s m e r i t l e s s on i t s f a c e . s e t t l e d that "[a] s i n g l e two o r more o f f e n s e s crime and t h e r e b y cannot subject p e r p e t r a t o r t o m u l t i p l e c o n v i c t i o n s f o r t h e same o f f e n s e . " parte D a r b y , 516 So. 2d 786, 787 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . However: "Under t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f d o u b l e j e o p a r d y , '[t]he a p p l i c a b l e r u l e i s t h a t , where t h e same a c t o r t r a n s a c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s a v i o l a t i o n o f two d i s t i n c t s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s , t h e t e s t t o be a p p l i e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e r e a r e two o f f e n s e s o r o n l y one, i s w h e t h e r e a c h p r o v i s i o n r e q u i r e s p r o o f o f a f a c t w h i c h t h e o t h e r does n o t . ' B l o c k b u r g e r v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S . C t . 180, 76 34 be the Ex CR-12-0674 L.Ed. 306 ( 1 9 3 2 ) . T h e r e f o r e , '"[a] s i n g l e a c t may be an o f f e n s e a g a i n s t two s t a t u t e s ; and i f e a c h s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s p r o o f o f an a d d i t i o n a l f a c t w h i c h t h e o t h e r does n o t , an a c q u i t t a l o r c o n v i c t i o n u n d e r e i t h e r s t a t u t e does n o t exempt t h e d e f e n d a n t f r o m p r o s e c u t i o n and p u n i s h m e n t u n d e r t h e o t h e r . " ' Id. ( q u o t i n g G a v i e r e s v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 220 U.S. 338, 342, 31 S.Ct. 421, 55 L.Ed. 489 (1911), i n t u r n quoting Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433 (18 7 1 ) ) . " Ex parte Dixon, 804 So. 2d 1075, 1078-79 ( A l a . 2000) . "In o t h e r w o r d s , as l o n g as e a c h s t a t u t o r y o f f e n s e r e q u i r e s p r o o f of a d d i t i o n a l facts, implicated." Ex the parte double jeopardy 675 Dawson, prohibition 2d So. 905, is 907 not (Ala. 1996). Shaw was theft of exceeding 1975, indicted property by $2,500. f o r , and (RDA, convicted of, for deception C. 9.) s t a t e s t h a t "[a] person o f p r o p e r t y i f he o r she ... first-degree of commits t h e c r i m e defines first-degree theft of hundred d o l l a r s property which deprive S e c t i o n 13A-8-3(a), A l a . in relevant part, exceeds two thousand On t h e o t h e r h a n d , § p r o v i d e s t h a t "[a] person 35 theft deception with i n t e n t to theft, ($2,500) i n v a l u e . " 9 - 6 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, currency of the [ k ] n o w i n g l y o b t a i n s by t h e owner o f h i s o r h e r p r o p e r t y . " "[t]he theft S e c t i o n 1 3 A - 8 - 2 ( 2 ) , A l a . Code c o n t r o l over the p r o p e r t y of another, Code 1975, the as five 13A- commits t h e CR-12-0674 crime of c r i m i n a l possession of a forged instrument s e c o n d d e g r e e i f he p o s s e s s e s o r u t t e r s any f o r g e d i n the instrument o f a k i n d s p e c i f i e d i n S e c t i o n 13A-9-3 w i t h k n o w l e d g e is f o r g e d and w i t h i n t e n t t o Contrary to Shaw's defraud." contention, p r o p e r t y and s e c o n d - d e g r e e 8 first-degree p o s s e s s i o n of a forged e a c h r e q u i r e e l e m e n t s t h a t t h e o t h e r does n o t . first-degree exceed theft $2,500, second-degree has possession of a uttering "forged a instrument" -- property of a forged Second-degree requires defined instrument example, no m i n i m u m - v a l u e r e q u i r e m e n t . instrument of For possession instrument forged theft of the r e q u i r e s t h a t the value while that i t possessing as or "[a] w r i t t e n i n s t r u m e n t w h i c h has b e e n f a l s e l y made, c o m p l e t e d o r a l t e r e d " § 1 3 A - 9 - 1 ( 7 ) , A l a . Code 1975 -- l i s t e d i n § 1 3 A - 9 - 3 ( a ) , while f i r s t - d e g r e e t h e f t does n o t r e q u i r e t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y s t o l e n be a f a l s e l y made, c o m p l e t e d , o r a l t e r e d i n s t r u m e n t § 13A-9-3(a). second-degree Because first-degree theft by p o s s e s s i o n of a forged instrument listed in deception and each r e q u i r e Section 13A-9-3(a), A l a . Code 1975, lists several instruments t h a t can f o r m t h e b a s i s o f a second-degree possession-of-a-forged-instrument conviction, including "a check, d r a f t , note or o t h e r commercial i n s t r u m e n t . " In t h i s c a s e , Shaw was i n d i c t e d f o r p o s s e s s i n g o r u t t e r i n g f o r g e d checks. 8 36 CR-12-0674 elements degree t h a t t h e o t h e r does n o t , c o n v i c t i o n s f o r b o t h theft and second-degree possession i n s t r u m e n t a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e same c o n d u c t not v i o l a t e double-jeopardy of a firstforged o r t r a n s a c t i o n do principles. D. Finally, Shaw r e a s s e r t s on a p p e a l c l a i m above -- t h a t t h e t r i a l ( 1 ) , as s e t o u t court lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n the judgments o r t o impose t h e s e n t e n c e s because, was i n c o m p e t e n t pleaded to stand t r i a l . with sufficient t o render he s a i d , he T h i s c l a i m , h o w e v e r , was n o t specificity to satisfy r e q u i r e m e n t s i n R u l e s 32.3 a n d 3 2 . 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. C r i m . In his petition, i m p a i r e d and s u f f e r e d Shaw from alleged severe Shaw s a i d t h a t he h a d "a h i s t o r y illness, that the P. "he was mentally schizophrenia." (C. 14.) of long-term severe mental s u f f e r i n g from p e r i o d i c and f r e q u e n t bouts o f severe schizophrenia where he was and i s completely unable to f u n c t i o n n o r m a l l y , competently, o r r e a s o n a b l y , i n normal dayto-day b a s i c d e c i s i o n making." his He a l s o s t a t e d that " i n t e l l e c t u a l d i s a b i l i t y " o r i g i n a t e d " i n h i s childhood or early life (C. 15.) adulthood" and r e s u l t e d i n "limitations i n his daily s k i l l s n e e d e d t o l i v e i n d e p e n d e n t l y i n t h e community a n d 37 CR-12-0674 an i n a b i l i t y t o make c o h e r e n t and r e a s o n a b l e d e c i s i o n s . " 14.) was Shaw f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t h i s " b e h a v i o r t h r o u g h o u t irrational and inappropriate" and trial e v i d e n c e d t h a t he n o t " a b l e t o a s s i s t i n h i s own d e f e n s e i n any m e a n i n g f u l (C. 14.) of the trial transcript" the time of t r i a l . Exhibit A as as Exhibits 16, (C. 2003, w h e r e i n DVA is way." and was B, and C, incompetent 17.) to Shaw's petition t h e DVA is a "Rating ("DVA") d a t e d s t a t e s t h a t Shaw s e r v e d i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Army f r o m A u g u s t 22, 1968, 1969, A, e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t he was 9 attached well D e c i s i o n " by t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f V e t e r a n s A f f a i r s October was Shaw s t a t e d t h a t "a s i m p l e r e a d i n g o f p a g e s 95-101 attached to h i s p e t i t i o n , at (C. t h r o u g h June 28, "a v e t e r a n o f t h e V i e t n a m E r a . " (C. 45.) The then s t a t e d t h a t " [ s ] e r v i c e connection f o r s c h i z o p h r e n i a granted with an evaluation of 70 percent." (C. 45.) E x h i b i t B i s a l e t t e r from Serena L u r i e B l o o m f i e l d , a l i c e n s e d " A l t h o u g h a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n e r i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o i n c l u d e attachments to h i s or her p e t i t i o n i n order to s a t i s f y the p l e a d i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s i n R u l e 32.3 and R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) , when a p e t i t i o n e r does s o , t h o s e a t t a c h m e n t s a r e c o n s i d e r e d p a r t o f t h e p l e a d i n g s . " C o n n e r v. S t a t e , 955 So. 2d 473, 476 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2006) . See a l s o Ex p a r t e L u c a s , 865 So. 2d 418 (Ala. 2002) ( a t t a c h m e n t s t o a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n a r e c o n s i d e r e d p a r t of the p l e a d i n g s ) . 9 38 CR-12-0674 p s y c h o l o g i s t , d a t e d J u l y 5, 2010, i n w h i c h B l o o m f i e l d s t a t e s , in relevant part: "My r e c o r d s i n d i c a t e t h a t U n i t e d S t a t e s m i l i t a r y and t h a t diagnoses of substance abuse Stress Disorder. You a l s o Schizophrenia with schizoid Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. you s e r v e d i n t h e you have c o - m o r b i d and Posttraumatic had a h i s t o r y of features and the " I t s h o u l d be known t h a t t h e f i r s t t i m e I e v a l u a t e d you was i n 1997. I saw you numerous t i m e s s i n c e t h e n . ... " I c o n d u c t e d numerous e v a l u a t i o n s and r e v i e w e d a g r e a t d e a l o f d o c u m e n t a t i o n i n v o l v i n g you and y o u r m e n t a l h e a l t h c o n d i t i o n . My i m p r e s s i o n s were i n t h e p a s t a t l e a s t t h a t you h a d a s u b s t a n c e d e p e n d e n c e disorder, t h a t you h a d numerous m e n t a l health c o n d i t i o n s b e g i n n i n g a t age 19. You were d i s c h a r g e d from the U n i t e d S t a t e s m i l i t a r y a f t e r s e r v i n g i n combat r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s i n V i e t n a m . As a c h i l d you were diagnosed with hyperactivity. You experience chronic nightmares, flashbacks, cold s w e a t s , a u d i t o r y and v i s u a l h a l l u c i n a t i o n s . "My diagnostic impressions included Posttraumatic Stress Disorder; Psychotic Disorder NOS; S c h i z o p h r e n i a , C h r o n i c U n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d Type; Substance Abuse Dependence. Even with these d i a g n o s e s I most o f t e n f o u n d you v e r y c o o p e r a t i v e and a t t e m p t i n g t o s e e k t r e a t m e n t . " (C. 46.) F i n a l l y , E x h i b i t C a p p e a r s t o be a d m i t t a n c e to a p s y c h i a t r i c hospital i n Florida -- one d a t e d 21, 1993, and t h e o t h e r d a t e d M a r c h 15, 1995. lists the diagnoses on a d m i s s i o n 39 as: records September The 1993 r e c o r d CR-12-0674 "AXIS I : P o l y s u b s t a n c e Abuse 305.90; D i s o r d e r 292.9; R/O M a l i n g e r i n g V65.2 Organic "AXIS I I : R/O A n t i s o c i a l P e r s o n a l i t y D i s o r d e r "AXIS I I I : A w a i t s results." (C. 50.) The record complete p h y s i c a l exam f i n a l d i a g n o s i s was g i v e n . " t h e d i a g n o s e s on a d m i s s i o n "AXIS I I I : No (C. 49.) On and l a b (C. 50.) discharge "Client released before The 1995 r e c o r d lists as "AXIS I : P s y c h o t i c D i s o r d e r NOS 298.9; Abuse 305.90; R/O M a l i n g e r i n g V65.20 "AXIS I I : No 301.7. s t a t e s t h a t t h e d i a g n o s e s on were t h e " [ s ] a m e as a b o v e " b u t n o t e s : Mood Polysubstance Dx Dx. discharge t h e 1995 record lists the following diagnoses: "AXIS I : P s y c h o t i c Abuse 305.90 "AXIS I I : No Disorder 298.9; Polysubstance Dx "AXIS I I I : T u b e r c u l o s i s C l a s s I I (+PPD) 011.90; H y p e r l i p o p r o t e i n e m i a Type I I A 272.0; H i a t a l H e r n i a , a s y m p t o m a t i c 553.5; A l l e r g y t o P o r k 693.1" (C. 49.) "A d e f e n d a n t i s m e n t a l l y i n c o m p e t e n t t o s t a n d t r i a l o r t o be s e n t e n c e d f o r an o f f e n s e i f t h a t d e f e n d a n t l a c k s s u f f i c i e n t 40 CR-12-0674 p r e s e n t a b i l i t y t o a s s i s t i n h i s o r h e r defense by c o n s u l t i n g with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e f a c t s and t h e l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g s a g a i n s t the defendant." R u l e 1 1 . 1 , A l a . R. C r i m . P. However: "[T]he law i s clear that '[p]roof of the i n c o m p e t e n c y o f an a c c u s e d t o s t a n d t r i a l i n v o l v e s more t h a n s i m p l y s h o w i n g t h a t t h e a c c u s e d h a s m e n t a l problems or p s y c h o l o g i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s . ' B a i l e y v. S t a t e , 421 So. 2d 1364, 1366 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 2 ) . "'"A d i s t i n c t i o n must be made b e t w e e n mental i l l n e s s and mental incompetency t o s t a n d t r i a l , and t h e f a c t t h a t a d e f e n d a n t i s m e n t a l l y i l l d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y mean t h a t he i s l e g a l l y i n c o m p e t e n t t o s t a n d trial. Thus, n o t e v e r y m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f mental i l l n e s s demonstrates incompetence t o stand trial; rather, the evidence of d e f e n d a n t ' s m e n t a l u n f i t n e s s must i n d i c a t e a present i n a b i l i t y to a s s i s t counsel or understand the charges."' "Cowan v. S t a t e , 579 So. 2d 13, 15 ( A l a . C r . App. 1990) ( q u o t i n g 22A C.J.S. C r i m i n a l Law § 550 (1989) (footnotes omitted))." Thomas v . S t a t e , aff'd, 766 So. 2d 860, 881 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) , 766 So. 2d 975 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s by Ex p a r t e T a y l o r , neither volatile, 10 So. 3d 1075 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) . low i n t e l l i g e n c e , mental deficiency, "Similarly, nor b i z a r r e , a n d i r r a t i o n a l b e h a v i o r c a n be e q u a t e d w i t h 41 mental CR-12-0674 incompetence t o stand 1095, 1107 long allegations i n his petition mental exhibits illness referencing before illnesses dated diagnosed 2009 t r i a l , various in of diagnoses as w e l l 2010, i n Rule Shaw was conclude that but as t h e l e t t e r referencing 32.3 a n d R u l e claim was n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y life to satisfy from t h e mental before his the pleading and t o i n d i c a t e trial. t h a t he was 1990's, his long 32.6(b) to stand and h i s i n the e a r l y as e a r l y as 1997, a l s o incompetent Shaw's t h a t he h a d s u f f e r e d h i s adult are simply not s u f f i c i e n t requirements trial f o r most h i s 2009 t r i a l , psychologist that M e d i n a v. S i n g l e t a r y , 59 F.3d (11th C i r . 1995). Shaw's from trial." Therefore, incompetent t o we stand pleaded. IV. Finally, summarily dismissing evidentiary Rule court Shaw c o n t e n d s t h a t his petition the c i r c u i t without court erred i n affording h i m an hearing. 3 2 . 7 ( d ) , A l a . R. t o summarily dismiss Crim. P., authorizes a p e t i t i o n e r ' s R u l e 32 the c i r c u i t petition " [ i ] f the court determines that the p e t i t i o n i s not s u f f i c i e n t l y s p e c i f i c , or i s precluded, or f a i l s to s t a t e a c l a i m , o r 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 law e x i s t s w h i c h w o u l d e n t i t l e t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o 42 CR-12-0674 r e l i e f u n d e r t h i s r u l e a n d t h a t no p u r p o s e 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 ... " would be See a l s o Hannon v. S t a t e , 861 So. 2d 426, 427 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 3 ) ; Cogman v. S t a t e , 2002); Tatum v. S t a t e , 1992). In 852 So. 2d 191, 193 607 So. 2d 383, 384 addition, "'"[w]here a ( A l a . C r i m . App. (Ala. simple Crim. reading of the 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 a l l e g a t i o n o f t h e p e t i t i o n t o be t r u e , i t i s o b v i o u s l y merit or dismiss i s precluded, that p e t i t i o n . " ' " F e b r u a r y 4, 2011] the c i r c u i t B r y a n t v. S t a t e , So. 3d , (quoting B i s h o p v. S t a t e , (quoting i n t u r n B i s h o p v. S t a t e , Crim. App. disposition refutes 1991) i s also (Bowen, J., appropriate ( A l a . 1992) dissenting))). where ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 5 ) . the record Summary directly See Duncan v. Because, as State, explained f r o m h i s p e t i t i o n t h a t Shaw p u r s u e s i n h i s b r i e f on a p p e a l were e i t h e r m e r i t l e s s by 2011) 592 So. 2d 664, 667 ( A l a . 925 So. 2d 245 refuted summarily [Ms. CR-08-0405, 608 So. 2d 345, 347-48 32 p e t i t i o n e r ' s c l a i m . directly [may] every without ( A l a . C r i m . App. a Rule above, a l l t h e c l a i m s court App. the record from on t h e i r face, or h i s d i r e c t appeal, or i n s u f f i c i e n t l y p l e a d e d , summary d i s p o s i t i o n o f Shaw's R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n was appropriate. 43 CR-12-0674 B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , is t h e judgment o f t h e c i r c u i t court affirmed. AFFIRMED. Welch and Burke, the result. Joiner, J J . , concur. J . , concurs r e s u l t i n p a r t ; and d i s s e n t s Windom, P . J . , c o n c u r s i n i n part; i n part, with 44 concurs opinion. i n the CR-12-0674 JOINER, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t ; c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e r e s u l t i n p a r t ; and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t . I concur i n the r e s u l t w i t h respect t o Part I I I . A . of the majority opinion, I dissent with respect I concur i n a l l other I because that concur respects. i n the r e s u l t with I do n o t b e l i e v e that conclusion his right such a h o l d i n g to Part So. 3d a t . i s unnecessary i n l i g h t of choice i n an Likewise, t h a t "Shaw c a n n o t now c o m p l a i n t h a t he was t o counsel III.A. between him and P i t t e r s attempt t o delay h i s t r i a l . " that respect " i t i s c l e a r from t h e r e c o r d Shaw c o n t r i v e d a d i s p u t e believe t o P a r t I I I . B . , and of I the denied when Shaw c o u l d h a v e , a t any time before h i s t r i a l , f i r e d P i t t e r s a n d h i r e d new c o u n s e l b u t f a i l e d t o do s o . " So. 3d I dissent with respect . to Part III.B.--in which the m a j o r i t y c o n c l u d e s t h a t Shaw was u n r e p r e s e n t e d b y c o u n s e l a t his first sentencing factual determination h e a r i n g - - b e c a u s e t h i s Court i s making a t h a t w o u l d b e s t be made b y t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o l l o w i n g an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g ; f u r t h e r , even i f t h i s C o u r t were i n a p o s i t i o n t o make a f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n 45 on CR-12-0674 the issue, the conclusion reached u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e m a t e r i a l s b e f o r e On May 14, 2009, Shaw--in made d e t a i l e d a n d a r t i c u l a t e sentenced to 27 years' trafficking-in-identities imprisonment sentences submission, At this the majority is Court. the presence of counsel who a r g u m e n t s on b e h a l f o f Shaw--was imprisonment convictions, f o r the remaining were by f o r the theft and convictions. t o run concurrently. (Record to 5 and years' A l l o f Shaw's on original R. 287-88.) t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e May 14 s e n t e n c i n g f o l l o w i n g exchange hearing, the occurred: "MR. PITTERS: I w o u l d a s k t h e C o u r t t o -- t h e r e i s an i s s u e h e r e w i t h r e s p e c t t o -- I ' v e p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d a M o t i o n t o W i t h d r a w . Mr. Shaw h a s -- f o r a l l p r a c t i c a l p u r p o s e s h a s -- been a s k i n g f o r me t o withdraw from t h i s case. When t h e v e r d i c t was a n n o u n c e d , he gave o r a l n o t i c e o f a p p e a l -- The A l a b a m a C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s -- W e ' l l have t o wait u n t i l sentencing. So a t t h i s t i m e , I ' l l s o r t of r e - f i l e o r a l l y and ask t h e Court f o r l e a v e t o withdraw. I was r e t a i n e d -¬ "THE COURT: -- f i l e a w r i t t e n m o t i o n , p l e a s e . Have you a l r e a d y f i l e d a w r i t t e n m o t i o n ? "MR. PITTERS: Y e s , I d i d . "THE COURT: Okay. W e l l , i t w i l l be g r a n t e d . And we w i l l a p p o i n t Mr. Shaw a n o t h e r a t t o r n e y u n l e s s he w a n t s t o h i r e h i s own. 46 CR-12-0674 "[Shaw]: something. Your Honor, I would like t o say "THE COURT: A l l r i g h t . " [ S h a w ] : You s e n t an o r d e r o v e r t o me t h a t I g o t a c o p y o f i t t h a t s t a t e d t h a t on t h e 1 7 t h t h a t Mr. P i t t e r s had withdrew then. I'm q u e s t i o n i n g , how he come b a c k t o be r e p r e s e n t i n g me now? I mean, y o u o r d e r e d t h a t he w i t h d r e w on t h e 1 7 t h . A n d I'm w o n d e r i n g , how he come t o be r e p r e s e n t i n g me now? I'm t a l k i n g a b o u t a t s e n t e n c i n g . You know, I'm t a l k i n g a b o u t -"THE J U D I C I A L ASSISTANT: I may be a b l e t o c l a r i f y t h a t a l i t t l e b i t f o r Mr. Shaw. Mr. P i t t e r s was a l l o w e d t o w i t h d r a w as t o y o u r a p p e a l . You f i l e d an a p p e a l . " [ S h a w ] : I f Mr. P i t t e r s w i t h d r e w , he w i t h d r e w , p e r i o d , b e c a u s e my f o l k s p a i d h i m $8,500, I mean, t o r e p r e s e n t me. I f he w i t h d r e w on t h e 1 7 t h , he f i l e d a motion. The C o u r t g r a n t e d h i s m o t i o n . He shouldn't have been h e r e r e p r e s e n t i n g me now. T h a t ' s t h e way I l o o k -- I t h i n k t h a t ' s t h e way t h e l a w s h o u l d go. I f he w i t h d r e w on t h e 1 7 t h f r o m my c a s e a n d t h e n he come b a c k t h i s m o r n i n g t o r e p r e s e n t me, how i s t h a t ? How a r e y o u g o i n g t o r e p r e s e n t ? How a r e y o u g o i n g t o w i t h d r e w on t h e 1 8 t h a n d t h e n come b a c k a n d r e p r e s e n t me when y o u f e e l like r e p r e s e n t i n g me -¬ "THE COURT: -- do y o u want me t o a p p o i n t y o u another a t t o r n e y f o r your sentencing? "[Shaw]: I would l i k e "THE COURT: Okay. Monday. Mr. "Ms. B a t t l e - H o d g e , Shaw on Monday. that. W e ' l l do t h e s e n t e n c i n g next you're appointed t o represent 47 CR-12-0674 "MS. BATTLE-HODGE: Thank you, Y o u r "MR. PITTERS: May "THE COURT: A l l r i g h t . " ( R e c o r d on a p p e a l , R. Four days later, sentencing hearing. counsel--was and I be 289-90 the excused? (emphasis circuit added).) court conducted a second In t h a t h e a r i n g , Shaw--in the p r e s e n c e of s e n t e n c e d t o 27 y e a r s ' i m p r i s o n m e n t f o r t h e t h e f t trafficking-in-identities imprisonment Honor. convictions, f o r the remaining c o n v i c t i o n s ; sentences were sentences. response run consecutively with t o 10 t h e two the five years' 27-year 1 0 In to and 10-year t o Shaw's a r g u m e n t t h a t h i s d o u b l e - j e o p a r d y r i g h t s were v i o l a t e d when he was r e s e n t e n c e d t o a g r e a t e r t e r m A l t h o u g h the second s e n t e n c i n g order r e f l e c t s t h a t the two 2 7 - y e a r s e n t e n c e s and t h e f i v e 1 0 - y e a r s e n t e n c e s a r e t o run c o n s e c u t i v e l y w i t h e a c h o t h e r , n e i t h e r t h e t r a n s c r i p t f r o m the second s e n t e n c i n g nor the subsequent s e n t e n c i n g o r d e r a d d r e s s e s w h e t h e r t h e two 2 7 - y e a r s e n t e n c e s and t h e f o u r 10year sentences are r e s p e c t i v e l y concurrent or c o n s e c u t i v e s e n t e n c e s ; a c c o r d i n g l y , t h e y a r e deemed t o a l l be c o n s e c u t i v e s e n t e n c e s . See § 1 4 - 3 - 3 8 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975 ("When a c o n v i c t i s s e n t e n c e d t o i m p r i s o n m e n t i n t h e p e n i t e n t i a r y on two o r more c o n v i c t i o n s , u n l e s s i t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y o r d e r e d i n t h e j u d g m e n t e n t r y t h a t s u c h s e n t e n c e s be s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y , s u c h s e n t e n c e s s h a l l be c u m u l a t i v e and s h a l l be s e r v e d consecutively[.]") Shaw's s e n t e n c e s o f i m p r i s o n m e n t - - f r o m f i r s t s e n t e n c i n g t o t h e s e c o n d - - w e n t f r o m , a t most, 27 y e a r s , t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y 104 y e a r s . 1 0 48 CR-12-0674 of imprisonment--and consecutive from when concurrent h i s sentences were sentences--the changed majority to opinion states: " I n t h i s c a s e , t h e o r i g i n a l s e n t e n c e s i m p o s e d on Shaw on May 14, 2009, were n o t v a l i d sentences b e c a u s e Shaw was n o t r e p r e s e n t e d b y c o u n s e l d u r i n g that o r i g i n a l sentencing hearing. As Shaw h i m s e l f a r g u e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t a t t h e May 14, 2009, s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , c o u n s e l who was p r e s e n t a t t h a t h e a r i n g had a l r e a d y withdrawn from r e p r e s e n t i n g him and, t h u s , Shaw was, i n e f f e c t , w i t h o u t counsel during that hearing." So. 3d First, . t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t "Shaw was n o t r e p r e s e n t e d by counsel during that o r i g i n a l sentencing hearing" i s a f a c t u a l determination--apparently b a s e d on Shaw's u n s w o r n statements a t t h e o r i g i n a l s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g - - r e l e v a n t t o t h e outcome o f Shaw's factual circuit claim that determination, was unlawfully however, resentenced; would best be such made by a a j u d g e a f t e r a f f o r d i n g Shaw an o p p o r t u n i t y t o a d d r e s s s u c h an a l l e g a t i o n . 730 he See Ex p a r t e Fountain, ( A l a . 2001) ( " P r o c e d u r a l due p r o c e s s contemplates the rudimentary So. 2d 726, ... b r o a d l y requirements i n c l u d e a f a i r a n d open h e a r i n g b e f o r e 842 speaking, of f a i r play, which a legally constituted c o u r t o r o t h e r a u t h o r i t y , w i t h n o t i c e and t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o 49 CR-12-0674 present e v i d e n c e and argument, r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by c o u n s e l , i f desired, party, and i n f o r m a t i o n with (quotation making a reasonable marks opportunity omitted)). factual Crim. long-standing App. controvert case, this them." Court i s addressed by either a f f i r m the d i s m i s s a l of so v i o l a t e s due p r o c e s s . [Ms. No. CR-08-0405, (Ala. of the opposing t h i s C o u r t may a f f i r m f o r any r e a s o n , i t may n o t do s o i f d o i n g State never by t h e j u d g e - - t o Shaw's c l a i m s ; a l t h o u g h to In this determination party--or considered v. as t o t h e c l a i m s F e b . 4, 2011] 2011) (noting and w e l l - r e a s o n e d that See B r y a n t So. 3d "there , exists a p r i n c i p l e t h a t we may a f f i r m t h e d e n i a l o f a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n i f t h e d e n i a l i s c o r r e c t f o r any reason," limited notice that but recognizing only by due-process at the t r i a l would otherwise totally omitted consideration, omitted)). this level, that this constraints "general that an a f f i r m a n c e , a f f i r m a t i v e defense might, suffice Accordingly, require w h i c h was o m i t t e d , support to affirm a 50 as when a i f available for judgment" on t h i s some of the basis such I would, a t the very c a s e f o r an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g rule i s (quotations least, issue. remand CR-12-0674 Second, to the extent that this Court may review this i s s u e de novo as a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o be made on a c o l d r e c o r d , Ex p a r t e H i n t o n , (Ala. 1110129, Nov. 9, 2012] So. 3d 2012), the c o n c l u s i o n reached i n the proposed o p i n i o n i s inconsistent hearing. and The at advocated by the does n o t above-quoted the the for transcript first Shaw the issue hearing of Pitters that Pitters purposes of immediately Pitters nor had P.; been Shaw's to sentencing. Further, withdraw appeal--notice after the the trial verdict--and, judge withdrawn b e f o r e the s e n t e n c i n g was zealously the s e n t e n c i n g t r a n s c r i p t allowed to and a t t o r n e y s w i t h d r a w o n l y by p e r m i s s i o n o f t h e c o u r t , see 6 . 2 ( b ) , A l a . R. C r i m . was sentencing hearing; establishes that sentencing on sentencing d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t Shaw by c o u n s e l a t t h e f i r s t contrary, present unsupported transcript unrepresented the [Ms. of further, understood evidences only which Rule for was that Pitters the given neither to have hearing. M o r e o v e r , e v e n i f P i t t e r s had, i n fact, been a l l o w e d to withdraw p r i o r to the s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , the l e g a l a u t h o r i t y r e l i e d upon i n t h e o p i n i o n do n o t s u p p o r t t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a d e f e n d a n t i s d e p r i v e d o f c o u n s e l where c o u n s e l has 51 withdrawn CR-12-0674 but continues Instead, to a c t as a the caselaw used instances defendant's attorney i n the majority i n which counsel in opinion was a b s e n t e n t i r e l y . 1 1 trial court during that sentencing counsel, at finds the t r i a l which and t h a t without d i d not waive counsel his right to should at the Coughlin App. 2002) ("Coughlin, himself at t r i a l . " ) ; be appointed v. S t a t e , f o r Tarver 842 So. 2d 30, 33 a nonindigent defendant, (Ala. Crim. represented B e r r y v. S t a t e , 630 So. 2d 127, 128 ( A l a . ("The represented represented he indeed ("If the hearing hearing."); although was Tarver c o u r t s h o u l d h o l d a new s e n t e n c i n g counsel C r i m . App. 1993) Tarver involves See v. S t a t e , 985 So. 2d 494, 495 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2006) fact. record discloses that by c o u n s e l by c o u n s e l at prior the a p p e l l a n t , proceedings, was n o t a t t h a t h e a r i n g . " ) ; A n d e r s o n v. S t a t e , 434 So. 2d 738, 738 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1983) ("On A p r i l 8, 1983, the Supreme C o u r t o f A l a b a m a , A n d e r s o n v. S t a t e , 434 So. 2d T h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n a r g u a b l y g i v e s r i s e t o a new r e a l m o f j u r i s d i c t i o n a l S i x t h Amendment c l a i m s ; s p e c i f i c a l l y , a d e f e n d a n t c o u l d r a i s e a c l a i m t h a t he was u n r e p r e s e n t e d b y counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings-- a jurisdictional claim--on the basis that the record i s ambiguous r e g a r d i n g c o u n s e l ' s s t a t u s as a t t o r n e y f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t , e v e n i f t h e r e c o r d e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t c o u n s e l was, i n f a c t , p r e s e n t and a c t i v e l y r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t . 11 52 CR-12-0674 737, d i r e c t e d t h i s c o u r t t o remand t h i s c a u s e f o r a s e n t e n c i n g hearing with counsel p r e s e n t . " ) . I conclude sentencing t h a t Shaw was hearing and, which i s four-times jeopardy p r o t e c t i o n s . (Ala. 1984); Shivener App. 2 0 0 6 ) ; Moore v. App. 2001) State, 723 v. 2d 105, than S t a t e , 814 So. So. So. 2d For the f o r e g o i n g reasons, 2d 590, 591-92 ( A l a . Crim. 310 ( A l a . Crim. Crim. ( A l a . C r i m . App. double- 913, 2d 308, 26.12, A l a . R. first sentence-¬ his first--violates S t a t e , 958 108 at h i s t h a t Shaw's s e c o n d Ex p a r t e T i c e , 475 ( c i t i n g Rule So. v a l i d l y sentenced thus, longer 1 2 P.); Snell v. 1998). I d i s s e n t as t o t h i s i s s u e . A l t h o u g h i t i s u n c l e a r f r o m t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n A n d e r s o n w h e t h e r t h e d e f e n d a n t i n t h a t c a s e was r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l - - o r , i n s t e a d , w h e t h e r c o u n s e l had s i m p l y w i t h d r a w n - - t h e o p i n i o n o f t h i s C o u r t on remand makes i t c l e a r t h a t c o u n s e l was n o t , i n f a c t , p r e s e n t a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g hearing. 1 2 53

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.