Ex parte John Michael Ward. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: John Michael Ward v. State of Alabama)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 02/19/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1070397 Ex p a r t e John M i c h a e l Ward PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In r e : John M i c h a e l Ward v. S t a t e o f Alabama) ( B a l d w i n C i r c u i t C o u r t , CC-97-7 99.60; C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s , CR-05-0655) LYONS, Justice. John certiorari Michael Ward to review petitioned this whether the Court Court f o ra w r i t of of Criminal Appeals 1070397 erred of i n a f f i r m i n g the Baldwin C i r c u i t h i s Rule relief. the 3 2 , A l a . R. C r i m . P., p e t i t i o n We issued the w r i t him. should For the reasons be tolling, Appeals to review a n d we was appeal, hold the doctrine the that of Ward equitable because of cert. App. 2000), denied, filed on N o v e m b e r 2, 2 0 0 5 . expired on A u g u s t Ward Appeals 907 32 p e t i t i o n (2002) 2 less 1975. On affirmed 814 So. however, The than direct So. 2d 2d 14 Ward's 899 925 ( A l a . ("Ward I " ) . for postconviction The t i m e f o r f i l i n g 1, 2 0 0 3 , 814 of h i s i n 1998. was v. S t a t e , denied, 535 U.S. a Rule A l a . Code Criminal cert. to death the v i c t i m § 13A-5-40(a)(15), Court murder i n the death sentenced and h i s s e n t e n c e . Crim. Ward of c a p i t a l made c a p i t a l conviction 2001), from we i s applicable F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y s o n a n d was o f age. (Ala. earlier r e v e r s e the judgment of the Court of C r i m i n a l convicted four-month-old years i n Ward's and remand t h e c a s e . W a r d was murder whether 32 p e t i t i o n d i s c u s s e d below, allowed to benefit I. had of c e r t i o r a r i of h i s Rule denial for postconviction 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 we a d o p t e d appeal of the d i s m i s s a l to C o u r t ' s summary h i s R u l e 32 relief petition and t h e t r i a l court 1070397 summarily Appeals dismissed Ward's affirmed, petition. without an The opinion, Court summary d i s m i s s a l o f t h e p e t i t i o n . Ward v. 0655), App. 988 II"). We So. 1078 (Ala. Crim. granted c e r t i o r a r i of which was Ala. Crim. R. 2d t h i s Court should adopt parte Ward, [Ms. 1051818, (Ala. 2007) ("Ward imposed in Rule the d o c t r i n e June are beyond 32.2(c), i f not, whether and, of e q u i t a b l e 1 , 2007] So. the is not jurisdictional petitioner's at We ___ . 32.2(c), 3d 32.2(c) ___ Rule tolling." that the Ala. exercise then time R. control Crim. P., , limitation and and that "the states, in that that are Ward I I I , Court of pertinent part: "Subject to the f u r t h e r p r o v i s i o n s h e r e i n a f t e r set out i n t h i s s e c t i o n , the c o u r t s h a l l not e n t e r t a i n any petition for relief from a conviction or s e n t e n c e on t h e g r o u n d s s p e c i f i e d i n R u l e 3 2 . 1 ( a ) and ( f ) , u n l e s s t h e p e t i t i o n i s f i l e d : (1) I n t h e case of a conviction appealed to the Court of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s , w i t h i n one (1) y e a r a f t e r the i s s u a n c e of t h e c e r t i f i c a t e o f judgment by t h e C o u r t of C r i m i n a l Appeals " 3 Ex circumstances of d i l i g e n c e . " concluded one i n Rule held the 1 issues, We even w i t h 3d ("Ward III"). unavoidable So. CR-05- two "equitable t o l l i n g i s available i n extraordinary that (No. (table) 2006) review to address is jurisdictional, [ 1 ] court's State "whether the l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d P., Criminal trial the of 1070397 Criminal Crim. Appeals P., erred that Rule a jurisdictional bar the doctrine of creates i n holding application of "reverse[d] i t sjudgment equitable i n that respect 32.2(c), that III, So. 3d a t between 32.2(c) and the running Ward's and remand[ed] i n Ward I I I . that has Ward been during h i s direct for a writ those attorneys Ward's Ward's family behalf expired of his by Rule nine filed later suspended before 32 he w o u l d petition different b u t d i d n o t do s o . from and a p e t i t i o n says, a Rule deadline The a t t o r n e y who 32 p e t i t i o n i n Rule of a c t u a l him t o pursue innocence 4 based to stay i n the on n e w l y on 32.2(c) eventually to allow a claim of and a n o t h e r , Ward habeas court One law, asked the f e d e r a l court petition note attorneys court. W a r d ' s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n corpus we are practicing file the one-year i n Rule opinion, in federal o f Ward's f i l e , that the two-year period h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , corpus was we opinion." the nearly For purposes of t h i s appeal, another l o s t portions told surrounding represented of habeas th[e] of the l i m i t a t i o n s filing addressed and . The c o m p l e x c i r c u m s t a n c e s delay precludes tolling," cause f o r f u r t h e r proceedings c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Ward A l a . R. filed Ward's state discovered 1070397 evidence. The f e d e r a l c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e s t a y , 32 p e t i t i o n of was asserting filed a claim p r o v e Ward's on N o v e m b e r of newly innocence, 2, 2 0 0 5 . set forth stated only any that the Rule 32 p e t i t i o n justification no timely However, discovered evidence ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. to and Ward's t h a t W a r d , who all legal b e i n g met. his of Rule 32 The p e t i t i o n petition case tolling of Criminal this i n Ward unpublished summary to obtain postconviction filed petition review were Ward a s s e r t e d t h e d o c t r i n e f o r the f i r s t Appeals Court time in his brief to the i n Ward I I . r e v e r s e d i t s judgment and remanded t h e I I I , the Court of memorandum, again affirmed dismissal o f Ward's Rule Criminal the 32 p e t i t i o n . Appeals, trial CR-05-0655, August 17, 2 0 0 7 ) , ___ So. 3d ___ App. 2007) The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s , ("Ward I V " ) . memorandum, held that 5 the t r i a l in an court's Ward v . S t a t e (No. unpublished It W a r d ' s p r e s e n t c o u n s e l was a p p o i n t e d i n 2 0 0 6 w h i l e equitable After failed had been any on i n t h e l a w , had assumed t h a t a p p e a l i n W a r d I I was p e n d i n g . Court tending to for i t s untimeliness. i s not t r a i n e d requirements instead relied solely b e c a u s e Ward's p r e v i o u s a t t o r n e y s had n o t f i l e d and Rule (Ala. Crim. i ni t s court properly 1070397 denied by Ward's p e t i t i o n Rule tolling was n o t a v a i l a b l e t o W a r d of the l i m i t a t i o n s assert the doctrine did he plead equitable held i t was and running further that 32.2(c) equitable the on t h e g r o u n d tolling Appeals pointed period of equitable any facts or that principles equitable tolling briefs of trial to consider present trial court granted. w h e t h e r Ward h i s evidence court Criminal d i d not regarding of Criminal memorandum i n W a r d I V Ward's argument and r e p l y motion to supplement the r e c o r d We again should i n support granted be a l l o w e d certiorari that review an o p p o r t u n i t y of equitable tolling to to the f o r consideration. II. In law appeared only i n h i sp r i n c i p a l a n d i n an u n t i m e l y the "Ward The C o u r t out i n i t s unpublished of i n h i s p e t i t i o n , nor t h a t t h e f a c t s and l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s s u p p o r t i n g for doctrine so as t o s u s p e n d because tolling in his petition." the time-barred i t sunpublished Appeals quoted Analysis memorandum from our i n Ward opinion IV, the Court i n Ward I I I as follows: "'Finally, we m u s t a d d r e s s the 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 s h e i s e n t i t l e d to 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 tolling. 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 6 of 1070397 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 c l a i m , a n d we h a v e 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 dismiss 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 to the p e t i t i o n from the State. B i s h o p v. State, 608 So. 2d 3 4 5 , 347-48 ( A l a . 1992) ("'Where a s i m p l e r e a d i n g o f a p e t i t i o n for post-conviction relief shows that, assuming e v e r y 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 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] summarily 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 R u l e s of C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e initially 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 a n y 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 to disprove t h a t a ground of p r e c l u s i o n applies. R u l e 3 2 . 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 but the most e x t r a o r d i n a r y of circumstances, 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 d e m o n s t r a t i n g 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 tolling. See S p i t s y n v . M o o r e , 345 F . 3 d [ 7 9 6 , ] 799 [ ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) ] ( 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 for the writ o f h a b e a s c o r p u s t o show t h a t the exclusion applies and that the "extraordinary circumstances" alleged, rather than a lack of d i l i g e n c e on h i s p a r t , w e r e 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 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) ("The burden of establishing entitlement to this extraordinary 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 , the petition must establish entitlement to the remedy afforded by the doctrine of equitable tolling. 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 to 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 w o u l d e n t i t l e t h e petitioner to the equitable tolling of the 7 1070397 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 b e s u m m a r i l y dismissed without a hearing. R u l e 3 2 . 7 ( d ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P.'" (Quoting Ward III, So. 3d a t quoted p o r t i o n of t h i s of Criminal Appeals denial not Court's concluded opinion that o f W a r d ' s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n assert the doctrine .) Based on t h e a b o v e - i n Ward I I I , t h e C o u r t the t r i a l court's summary was p r o p e r b e c a u s e W a r d d i d of e q u i t a b l e tolling i n h i s Rule 32 petition. Especially pertinent to this case, however, p a r a g r a p h i n Ward I I I t h a t p r e c e d e s t h e a b o v e - q u o t e d relied there upon by t h e C o u r t of C r i m i n a l Appeals i n Ward is material IV. stated: "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 that 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 even with the exercise of 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 "equity would make the r i g i d 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 whether 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 . " ' F a h y v . H o r n , 240 F . 3 d 239, 245 (3d C i r . 2001 ) ( q u o t i n g Miller v. New J e r s e y D e p ' t o f C o r r . , 145 F . 3 d 6 1 6 , 618 ( 3 d 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 trigger equitable t o l l i n g i s very high, l e s t the exceptions swallow the r u l e . ' United States v. M a r c e l l o , 212 F . 3 d 1 0 0 5 , 1010 ( 7 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) . " 8 the We 1070397 Ward III, So. 3d a t . The d i s p o s i t i v e i s s u e before us i s w h e t h e r the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals c o r r e c t l y held that the d o c t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e tolling it i s n o t a v a i l a b l e t o Ward b e c a u s e i n the November on June Rule 32 petition 2, 2 0 0 5 , b e f o r e 1, 2 0 0 7 , impression In light tolling limitations provision newly be a d o p t e d , a n d t h a t t h i s have equitable the that 32.2(c), the counsel that of opportunity to first to a Rule 32 doctrine of i t was to the Ward who t h i s Court that the doctrine i s a capital on i n Ward I I I exception should c a s e , we h o l d t h a t assert the States Supreme C o u r t has h e l d t h a t of prosecutions the conduct criminal retroactively to direct or not yet f i n a l . " review a l l cases, U.S. 3 1 4 , 328 (1987). of to pending new tolling assert Ward doctrine of tolling. The U n i t e d for fact to as a m a t t e r recognized of Rule argued s u c c e s s f u l l y before should recognized the previous our opinion of e q u i t a b l e of is a by released i n w h i c h we the a v a i l a b i l i t y petitioner. equitable we filed he f a i l e d rules state or This Court recognizes cases that 9 i s t o be federal, Griffith "a new rule applied pending v. Kentucky, on 479 the a p p l i c a b i l i t y are not yet f i n a l . See, 1070397 e.g., Ex Ex parte parte (Ala. Martinez, 2009), writ W a l d r o p , 859 of we [Ms. held related to to 2d 1181, 1 0 6 1 2 3 7 , May that c e r t i o r a r i was entitled So. a 1184 29, 2009] defendant pending whose when we assert the doctrine h i s Rule 32 of petition. (Ala. 2002). So. Ward for a III was t o l l i n g as equitable We 3d petition decided In i t stated: "While Martinez's certiorari petition was pending, t h i s Court issued i t s opinion in [Ward III]. Martinez d i d not have t h e b e n e f i t of Ward [ I I I ] t o a f f o r d him the o p p o r t u n i t y to argue the equitable tolling of the limitations period. A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s and remand t h e c a s e t o t h a t c o u r t f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of M a r t i n e z ' s c l a i m t h a t he is e n t i t l e d 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 and, i f i t decides t h a t he i s , whether the trial court was correct in denying Martinez's petition." Martinez, So. Martinez of the reflects that assert the limitations case speak claims the period English, postconviction he at . A Martinez only doctrine " b e c a u s e , he entitled 3d claim Rule says, as faced review." to a s s e r t the of our summary a r g u e d i n h i s R u l e 32 that of e q u i t a b l e of review could t o l l i n g was 32.2(c) a native should 3d newly recognized 10 said a claim that not obstacles at petition be apply o f G u a t e m a l a who significant So. arguably . doctrine in to the in his does not pursuing Martinez of in was equitable 1070397 tolling on doctrine, remand; which Moreover, petition likewise, was adopted Ward was Ward petitioner review that 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 p e r i o d o f R u l e 32. is generally In c i v i l applied retroactively in Unocal v. 2008), the p a r t y who the law should though Ward's limitations 32 of he only, for his for and so. or certainly Finally, error are this benefit as was 2 As we 2d should about adopt rule is of law applied As 293 we (Ala. a change efforts. tolling not r a i s e d rule his limitations 291, in Even of the i n h i s Rule i n h i s appeal to in his certiorari the petition to t o come a f t e r h i m . He well. is a capital terminal. the in adopted. her equitable t h i s Court, thus b e n e f i t i n g p e t i t i o n e r s should i t i t is 990 f o r t h e new Appeals argued Court in bringing of Rule 32.2(c) argued Criminal Corp., prevails argument assert i n r e g a r d to the i n which rewarded period petition, Court be this prospectively case in Griffin who c a s e s , a l t h o u g h a new the stated to i n h i s case. the for certiorari is entitled case where the consequences pointed out i n Ward I I I , we of pay In Ward I I I , we d i d not limit the application of equitable t o l l i n g to c a p i t a l cases. We n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t s u c h an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e r u l e i s a v a i l a b l e i n a n y c a s e o n l y i n extraordinary circumstances. 2 11 1070397 particular attention application whether of the a due-process guarantee Amendment implicated i f we principles solely to case i n which have allow him be reasonable Ward the i t sadoption. an o p p o r t u n i t y merits. period in case, the of the Constitution i s benefit he d i d n o t i n c l u d e by and diligence fairness States rigid unfair I n Ward's t h i s Court recognized he u r g e d presented limitations their whether of the t h a t was a d o p t e d a s a r e s u l t o f this f a c t s or to present of Rule filed we over of a l l the believe that to the t r i a l of the e q u i t a b l e 32.2(c) legal the doctrine i n In l i g h t case, e v i d e n c e and arguments i n s u p p o r t the would fundamental tolling because to i n support of the d o c t r i n e i n a p e t i t i o n circumstances should period the United to a y e a r and a h a l f b e f o r e a case the claims. of fail of equitable efforts capital exercised and b r i n g i n g Fourteenth his a limitations petitioner investigating doctrine in Ward court h i s tolling of for consideration on The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s e r r e d i n denying t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e n e w l y a d o p t e d r u l e when i t a f f i r m e d t h e trial court's based on t h e t i m e b a r i n R u l e III. summary dismissal o f Ward's Rule 32 petition 32.2(c). Ward's M o t i o n t o S u p p l e m e n t t h e S t a t e m e n t of F a c t s and t h e R e c o r d 12 1070397 Ward facts has and attention to the the on a motion record in certiorari Court rehearing Those filed of and and Criminal to the to trial documents court supplement on the to assert remand. f a c t s and should and be claim applied fact that his judgment of for an that the entitled to hearing and file an a included for record. support should therefore presented i n the evidentiary record Court's application be for presented deny Ward's m o t i o n in this case. doctrine limitations considered h a v e an of period on a r g u m e n t was on remand the out-of-time merits 13 Rule Rule not 2 0 0 5 , we i t to determination of i t s merits, on N o v e m b e r 2, to opportunity equitable o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s and in turn, evidentiary claim the filed Court court, tolling the equitable-tolling t h e R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n not this his t h a t Ward s h o u l d the h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n We to of Conclusion that to in statement were not argument, which conclude his are the bring facts that provide IV. B e c a u s e we to Appeals that Ward's e q u i t a b l e - t o l l i n g supplement order review documents facts to the of tolling 32.2(c) despite the included in reverse the remand the trial Ward's as to 32 petition. court case for equitable- whether Ward is 1070397 MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT Woodall, Stuart, D E N I E D ; REVERSED AND Smith, Bolin, REMANDED. P a r k e r , and Murdock, JJ., concur. C o b b , C . J . , a n d Shaw, J . , * r e c u s e themselves. * J u s t i c e Shaw was a member o f t h e C o u r t A p p e a l s when t h a t c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h i s c a s e . 14 of Criminal

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.