Ex parte William C. Coleman. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: William C. Coleman v. State of Alabama)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/27/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , 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) 229-0649), o f any 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2010 1090975 Ex p a r t e W i l l i a m C. Coleman PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In r e : W i l l i a m C. Coleman v. State o f Alabama) (Jefferson C i r c u i t C o u r t , CC-07-2368.60; CC-07-2369.60; CC- 07-2370.60; a n d CC-07-2371.60; C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s , CR-09-0088) SMITH, Justice. William first-degree C. C o l e m a n p l e a d e d sodomy, guilty a n d two c o u n t s to first-degree of first-degree rape, sexual 1090975 abuse. Coleman relief then pursuant petition summarily Appeals affirmed Coleman's 19, the petition. 2010), 32 p e t i t i o n . circuit Coleman S o . 3d remand the the case the c i r c u i t 32 judgment The court's v. Crim. of to that Court summary State of Criminal dismissal (No. C R - 0 9 - 0 0 8 8 , ( A l a . C r i m . App. g r a n t e d Coleman's p e t i t i o n reverse A l a . R. postconviction i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l ; the c i r c u i t court Rule 32, for alleging Coleman's Rule a P., dismissed to filed 2010) the Court of Criminal court with directions Feb. (table). f o r the w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i . of We Appeals t o remand We now and i t to c o u r t f o r a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on C o l e m a n ' s Rule petition. Facts On A p r i l offenses: 61(a)(3); and p r o c e d u r a l 7, 2 0 0 8 , C o l e m a n p l e a d e d g u i l t y (1) f i r s t - d e g r e e 1 (2) f i r s t - d e g r e e 6-63(a)(3); 2 history and rape, to the following see A l a . Code 1975, § 13A-6- sodomy, s e e A l a . Code 1975, § (3) two counts of 13A- first- A l a b a m a Code 1975, § 1 3 A - 6 - 6 1 ( a ) ( 3 ) , p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ a ] p e r s o n c o m m i t s t h e c r i m e o f r a p e i n t h e f i r s t d e g r e e i f ... [h]e o r s h e , b e i n g 16 y e a r s o r o l d e r , e n g a g e s i n s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h a member o f t h e o p p o s i t e s e x who i s l e s s t h a n 12 y e a r s o l d . " 1 A l a b a m a Code 1975, § 1 3 A - 6 - 6 3 ( a ) ( 3 ) , p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ a ] p e r s o n c o m m i t s t h e c r i m e o f s o d o m y i n t h e f i r s t d e g r e e i f ... 2 2 1090975 degree The sexual abuse, Jefferson s e e A l a . Code Circuit Court 1975, § sentenced 13A-6-66(a)(1). him to i m p r i s o n m e n t on t h e r a p e c o n v i c t i o n , 20 y e a r s ' the s o d o m y c o n v i c t i o n , a n d 10 y e a r s ' the sexual-abuse were i m p r i s o n m e n t on imprisonment c o n v i c t i o n s and o r d e r e d years' that on e a c h o f the sentences to run concurrently. Coleman signed of s e r v i c e s rendered to 20 3 each a "defendant's by c o u r t of the g u i l t y statements indicating of pleas satisfaction, an a n s w e r statement appointed he satisfaction attorney" with entered. Coleman of In each placed a regard of those check mark of " y e s " to the f o l l o w i n g questions: " 1 . A r e y o u s a t i s f i e d t h a t y o u r a t t o r n e y ... i s a competent, good a t t o r n e y and has r e p r e s e n t e d you t o your best i n t e r e s t i n the settlement of t h i s case (these c a s e s ) ? "2. A r e you s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h i s case (these c a s e s ) ? "3. D i d you p l e a d [h]e, being intercourse guilty the plea of your own 16 y e a r s o l d o r o l d e r , e n g a g e s w i t h a p e r s o n who i s l e s s t h a n bargaining free in will?" i n deviate sexual 12 y e a r s o l d . " A l a b a m a Code 1 9 7 5 , § 1 3 A - 6 - 6 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) , provides that " [ a ] p e r s o n commits t h e crime of s e x u a l abuse i n t h e f i r s t degree if ... [ h ] e s u b j e c t s a n o t h e r p e r s o n t o s e x u a l c o n t a c t by forcible compulsion." 3 3 1090975 Additionally, of Coleman p l a c e d a check mark i n d i c a t i n g "no" to the following an answer questions: " 4 . Has a n y o n e f o r c e d y o u o r c o e r c e d y o u i n a n y manner t o g e t you t o p l e a d g u i l t y i n this case (these c a s e s ) ? " 5 . Has a n y o n e p r o m i s e d plead g u i l t y ? " you a n y t h i n g t o g e t you t o At statement the bottom following questions indicating your of language " I f you answered Coleman March postconviction with this Statement signed a statement of S a t i s f a c t i o n . " of satisfaction the 'yes' to your a t t o r n e y has l o o k e d t o your b e s t i n t e r e s t the g u i l t y In appears: of s a t i s f a c t i o n , 1, 2 & 3 a n d 'no' t o q u e s t i o n s 4 & 5, s i g n t h i s concurrence noted, of each form and As as t o each pleas. 2009, relief Coleman pursuant I n t h e R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , filed to Rule a petition 3 2 , A l a . R. C r i m . Coleman contended for P. 4 that h i sattorney's When h e f i l e d t h e R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , C o l e m a n d i d n o t p a y the f i l i n g f e e ; i n s t e a d , he f i l e d a r e q u e s t t o p r o c e e d i n forma p a u p e r i s . On A p r i l 1, 2 0 0 9 , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d e n i e d Coleman's r e q u e s t t o p r o c e e d i n forma p a u p e r i s . Coleman then f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus w i t h 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 , s e e k i n g an o r d e r r e q u i r i n g t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t to g r a n t h i s r e q u e s t t o p r o c e e d i n forma p a u p e r i s ; t h e Court o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s d e n i e d t h e mandamus p e t i t i o n o n J u l y 2, 2 0 0 9 . On J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 , C o l e m a n p a i d t h e r e q u i s i t e f i l i n g f e e f o r h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . 4 4 1090975 ineffective because, assistance Coleman said, rendered his guilty involuntary had p r o v i d e d h i s attorney pleas him and h i s wife with erroneous information "concerning and work-release." attorney Specifically, informed him that the Coleman attorney that persons s e n t e n c e d t o 20 y e a r s ' years months and accepted center 8 i n approximately allowing center, given inaccurate; h i s wife later or work attorney's that to a on w e e k e n d s . by his learned release. 5 "data" and t h a t , w h i l e could Coleman Coleman parole his paroled; Coleman him to v i s i t allegedly for had that "likely" attorney that he was Coleman misrepresentations, only 6 i f Coleman work-release he was obtain The his showing imprisonment serve being one y e a r ; eligibility claimed t h e p l e a a g r e e m e n t he c o u l d be s e n t work-release either before parole at a passes information proved to be ineligible for contended that, but he not have would Coleman alleges that, "[a]fter processing into the [ A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f C o r r e c t i o n s , ] " he "was informed by c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s p e c i a l i s t t h a t ... [ h e ] i s b a r r e d f r o m p a r o l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n due t o a l l e g e d v i c t i m b e i n g u n d e r t h e a g e o f twelve." See C o l e m a n ' s b r i e f , p . 3; s e e a l s o A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , § 15-22-27.3 (providing that "[a]ny person convicted of a c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n s e i n v o l v i n g a c h i l d ... w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e s a C l a s s A o r B f e l o n y s h a l l n o t be e l i g i b l e f o r p a r o l e " ) . Coleman also alleges that the " c l a s s i f i c a t i o n specialist i n f o r m e d C o l e m a n he w o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d n o r i s e l i g i b l e f o r w o r k - r e l e a s e o r a n y l e s s e r r e s t r i c t i v e c u s t o d y due t o h i s convictions f o r sexual offenses." See C o l e m a n ' s b r i e f , p . 1 2 . 5 5 1090975 pleaded guilty. allowed to withdraw h i s g u i l t y The Rule State Accordingly, moved 32 p e t i t i o n . other other I n i t smotion, court " p r o v i d e [ d ] no a f f i d a v i t attorney" his w i f e , and h i s a t t o r n e y r e g a r d i n g and work r e l e a s e Coleman his Rule State, other showing that filed occurred. ( A l a . Crim. o n l y a c l e a r and s p e c i f i c the of State's motion to dismiss App. 2 0 0 1 ) , stage, h i s claim, wife's Coleman affidavits In h i s a f f i d a v i t , Ford argued, further argument does, that stated Coleman does n o t he m u s t that, provide offer which "[d]espite Coleman must o f f e r however, v. among s t a t e m e n t o f t h e g r o u n d s upon Coleman erroneous Coleman, Coleman's e l i g i b i l i t y f o r things, that, "[a]t the pleading i s sought." and noted between have t h e burden o f p r o v i n g h i s c l a i m s . Rather, relief to support h i s In t h e answer, Coleman, c i t i n g 831 S o . 2 d 641 among from e i t h e r h i s w i f e or an a n s w e r t o t h e S t a t e ' s 32 p e t i t i o n . be Coleman's statements" the conversation ever should contended, " o f f e r [ e d ] no p r o o f his parole he to dismiss the State t h a n h i s own s e l f - s e r v i n g t h a t Coleman said, pleas. the c i r c u i t t h i n g s , t h a t Coleman claims Coleman proof he [ s i c ] a n d h i s showing h i s m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n s are t r u e . " Coleman stated, 6 i n pertinent part: 1090975 "[My a t t o r n e y ] a d v i s e d t h a t , b a s e d on d a t a he h a d , I c o u l d be p a r o l e d a f t e r 6 y r s , 8 mos, I could be m o v e d t o a w o r k r e l e a s e p r o g r a m , a n d p o s s i b l y g e t w e e k e n d f u r l o u g h s . He a d d e d t h a t I c o u l d p o s s i b l y g e t o u t s o o n e r due t o p r i s o n overcrowding. "My o p t i o n s w e r e t o a c c e p t t h e p l e a a g r e e m e n t , b a s e d on t h e s t a t e m e n t s [my a t t o r n e y ] made, o r go t o t r i a l a n d p o s s i b l y f a c e a l o n g e r s e n t e n c e . My w i f e and I j o i n t l y a g r e e d t o a c c e p t t h e p l e a a g r e e m e n t , b a s e d on [my a t t o r n e y ' s ] s t a t e m e n t s , thinking that I w o u l d s e r v e c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s t h a n 20 y e a r s . "Upon r e s e a r c h i n g , I f o u n d t h a t s e x offenders are not e l i g i b l e f o r p a r o l e or work r e l e a s e . I would s e r v e t h e e n t i r e 20 y e a r s . Had I k n o w n t h a t , I w o u l d not have a c c e p t e d the p l e a agreement. I would have e l e c t e d t o go t o t r i a l . A f t e r a l l , a t my age o f 63, a 20 y e a r s e n t e n c e i s a l i f e s e n t e n c e f o r me. I had n o t h i n g t o l o o s e [ s i c ] by g o i n g t o t r i a l . " (Emphasis In in her original.) affidavit, Coleman's wife stated, in pertinent part: "[Coleman's a t t o r n e y ] advised t h a t , based on some d a t a t h a t he h a d , t h a t Mr. C o l e m a n w o u l d be e l i g i b l e f o r p a r o l e a f t e r 6 y r s , 8 mos. That a f t e r a ' f e w y e a r s ' he c o u l d be m o v e d t o a w o r k r e l e a s e p r o g r a m . He a d d e d t h a t Mr. Coleman c o u l d get out s o o n e r due t o p r i s o n overcrowding. " C o n s i d e r i n g my h u s b a n d ' s age o f 63, we e l e c t e d , jointly, to accept the p l e a agreement i n s t e a d o f going to trial and risking more [prison] time. [Coleman's a t t o r n e y ' s ] s t a t e m e n t s were the d e c i d i n g factor i n our d e l i b e r a t i o n . Had we realized the s t a t e m e n t s t o be f a l s e , we w o u l d h a v e e l e c t e d t o go to trial." 7 1090975 On S e p t e m b e r 16, 2009, the summarily dismissing order, circuit the circuit Coleman's court found, Rule court 32 entered an petition. in pertinent order In the part: "[Coleman] claims that his guilty pleas were involuntarily made as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel, in that counsel misrepresented t o h i m t h a t he w o u l d be e l i g i b l e f o r p a r o l e a f t e r s i x y e a r s a n d e i g h t m o n t h s a n d t h a t he c o u l d go t o a w o r k r e l e a s e c e n t e r i n a b o u t a y e a r . P e t i t i o n e r o f f e r s an a f f i d a v i t f r o m b o t h h i m s e l f a n d h i s w i f e t o s u p p o r t h i s c l a i m s . H o w e v e r , he p r o v i d e s no affidavit from his attorney that such a c o n v e r s a t i o n a c t u a l l y t o o k p l a c e . In f a c t , E x h i b i t s 1, 2, 3 a n d 4 [ C o l e m a n ' s p l e a a g r e e m e n t s ] do not c o n t a i n any o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i v e t o ' s h o r t e r p r i s o n s e n t e n c e s ' , 'work r e l e a s e ' o r ' e a r l y p a r o l e . ' M o r e o v e r , E x h i b i t s 5, 6, 7 a n d 8 a t t a c h e d hereto, which are defendant's signed statements of s a t i s f a c t i o n o f s e r v i c e s r e n d e r e d by h i s a t t o r n e y , a l l r e f l e c t that defendant pled g u i l t y , i n a l l of his cases, of his own free will, and was not promised anything i n exchange f o r s a i d p l e a s , e t c . " Coleman moved summarily denied the circuit dismissing the court h i s Rule 32 to reconsider p e t i t i o n ; the its order circuit court motion. Coleman appealed to the Court of r e a s s e r t i n g h i s c l a i m t h a t he was of allegedly misinformed his counsel when h i s eligibility guilty. The for Court attorney parole of and Criminal 8 denied Criminal work effective release Appeals Appeals, assistance him i f he affirmed the about pleaded circuit 1090975 court's s u m m a r y d i s m i s s a l o f C o l e m a n ' s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n unpublished Feb. 19, 2010), (table). Appeals memorandum. Coleman So. In i t s unpublished concluded, v. 3d State (No. ( A l a . Crim. i n an CR-09-0088, App. 2010) memorandum, t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l in pertinent part, that, " [ e ] v e n i f we a r e t o a s s u m e t h a t C o l e m a n h a s p l e a d e d sufficient f a c t s to support a claim that trial counsel e r r e d under the f i r s t prong of S t r i c k l a n d [ v . W a s h i n g t o n , 466 U.S. 668 , 687 (1 9 8 4 ) , ] C o l e m a n has p l e a d e d a b a r e a l l e g a t i o n o f p r e j u d i c e u n d e r t h e second prong of S t r i c k l a n d . Coleman essentially claims that but f o r counsel's alleged deficient performance, he would not have p l e a d e d guilty. Coleman f a i l s t o p l e a d f a c t s t h a t would d e m o n s t r a t e a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y that 'but f o r c o u n s e l ' s u n p r o f e s s i o n a l e r r o r s , the r e s u l t of the proceeding w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i f f e r e n t . ' H y d e [ v . S t a t e ] , 950 S o . 2d [344,] 356 [(Ala. Crim. App. 2006)]. Thus, C o l e m a n has f a i l e d t o meet h i s b u r d e n o f p l e a d i n g with respect to h i s i n e f f e c t i v e assistance of counsel claim. Accordingly, the c i r c u i t court d i d not e r r i n summarily d i s m i s s i n g Coleman's p e t i t i o n . " After the Court application f o r rehearing, w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i Coleman contended affirmance of C r i m i n a l of the Appeals Coleman i n t h i s Court. that the circuit filed Coleman's a petition In the c e r t i o r a r i Court court's overruled of f o r the petition, Criminal summary dismissal Appeals' of h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n c o n f l i c t s w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g d e c i s i o n s : v. State, 494 S o . 2 d 922 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 9 1986), Elder overruled on 1090975 other grounds, Brown v. State, 727 So. parte Blackmon, 734 So. Lockhart, for 474 Ex parte U.S. certiorari 52 Booker, 2d 992 885 2d (Ala. 995 (1985). So. 2d Crim. (Ala. We 686 (Ala. App. 1999); granted 2008); 1 98 8 ) ; and Coleman's Hill Ex v. petition review. Discussion Coleman argues in a f f i r m i n g the 32 petition. circuit was satisfy Court court's t o an h i s burden his proof. Criminal Appeals 32 argues petition thus, to present We that so as he Rule met to avoid Coleman his the says, he evidence i n order to agree. " R u l e 32.3, A l a . R. C r i m . P., states that ' [ t ] h e p e t i t i o n e r s h a l l have the burden of p l e a d i n g and p r o v i n g by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e of t h e e v i d e n c e t h e facts necessary to entitle the petitioner to r e l i e f . ' R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., 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 specific statement of the grounds upon which relief is sought, i n c l u d i n g f u l l d i s c l o s u r e of the f a c t u a l b a s i s of those grounds. A bare a l l e g a t i o n t h a t a constitutional right has b e e n v i o l a t e d and mere conclusions of law shall not be sufficient to w a r r a n t any f u r t h e r proceedings.' "'An evidentiary hearing on a [ R u l e 32] p e t i t i o n i s r e q u i r e d o n l y i f the p e t i t i o n is "meritorious on i t s face." Ex parte 10 erred summary d i s m i s s a l o f h i s petition; opportunity of of Coleman i n h i s Rule d i s p o s i t i o n of entitled the Specifically, burden of p l e a d i n g summary that 1090975 B o a t w r i g h t , 471 So. 2d 1257 ( A l a . 1985). A p e t i t i o n i s " m e r i t o r i o u s on i t s f a c e " o n l y if i t contains a clear and specific s t a t e m e n t of t h e g r o u n d s upon w h i c h relief i s sought, i n c l u d i n g f u l l d i s c l o s u r e of the f a c t s r e l i e d upon (as o p p o s e d t o a g e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t c o n c e r n i n g t h e n a t u r e and e f f e c t of t h o s e f a c t s ) s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r i s e n t i t l e d to r e l i e f i f those f a c t s a r e t r u e . Ex p a r t e B o a t w r i g h t , s u p r a ; Ex p a r t e C l i s b y , 501 So. 2d 483 (Ala. 1986).' " M o o r e v . S t a t e , 502 So. 2d 8 1 9 , 820 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . A p e t i t i o n e r b e a r s no b u r d e n o f ' p r o v i n g ' h i s c l a i m s a t t h e p l e a d i n g s t a g e . See F o r d v . S t a t e , 831 So. 2 d 641 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) . A s t h i s C o u r t n o t e d i n Boyd v. S t a t e , 913 So. 2 d 1113 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003): "'"Rule 32.6(b) requires that the p e t i t i o n i t s e l f d i s c l o s e the f a c t s r e l i e d u p o n 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 3 6 4 , 406 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) . I n other words, i t i s not the p l e a d i n g of a c o n c l u s i o n "which, i f t r u e , e n t i t l e [ s ] the p e t i t i o n e r t o r e l i e f . " L a n c a s t e r v. S t a t e , 638 So. 2 d 1370 , 1373 (Ala. Crim. 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 pleading which, i f true, entitle[s] a petitioner to relief. After facts are pleaded, which, i f true, entitle the petitioner to r e l i e f , the p e t i t i o n e r i s then entitled to an opportunity, as p r o v i d e d i n R u l e 3 2 . 9 , A l a . R. C r i m . P., t o present evidence proving those alleged facts.' "913 So. "'The and 2d at 1125. Further, burden of p l e a d i n g under Rule Rule 32.6(b) is a heavy 11 32.3 one. 1090975 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 not s a t i s f y the requirements of Rule 32.3 a n d R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) . The full factual b a s i s f o r t h e c l a i m m u s t be i n c l u d e d i n t h e p e t i t i o n i t s e l f . I f , assuming every f a c t u a l allegation 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 is entitled to relief, the p e t i t i o n e r has not s a t i s f i e d t h e 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 ) . 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. 2003).' "Hyde v . 2 006)." Scott v. State, State, , [Ms. 950 So. 2d 344, CR-06-2233, (Ala. Crim. App. 356 March (Ala. Crim. 26, App. 2010] So. 3d 2010). Also, "[t]o prevail on a claim of ineffective a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l , a [ R u l e 32] p e t i t i o n e r m u s t show (1) that his counsel's performance was d e f i c i e n t , and (2) t h a t he was p r e j u d i c e d b y the d e f i c i e n t p e r f o r m a n c e . S t r i c k l a n d v. W a s h i n g t o n , 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ; E x p a r t e L a w l e y , 512 So. 2 d 1 3 7 0 , 1372 ( A l a . 1987). In the c o n t e x t of a g u i l t y - p l e a p r o c e e d i n g , a petitioner must show t h a t , but for counsel's e r r o r s , the p e t i t i o n e r would not have p l e a d e d g u i l t y b u t w o u l d h a v e i n s i s t e d on p r o c e e d i n g t o t r i a l . H i l l v . L o c k h a r t , 474 U.S. 5 2 , 5 8 - 5 9 , 106 S . C t . 3 6 6 , 88 L . E d . 2 d 203 (1985)." Winbush v. State, 18 Coleman contends f o u r o f f e n s e s "was So. 3d 423, 423 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009). that h i s d e c i s i o n to plead g u i l t y to the based s o l e l y upon c o u n s e l ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s 12 1090975 of p a r o l e and w o r k - r e l e a s e e l i g i b i l i t y " that he was because actually of the nature guilty pleaded but, proceeding further to a of claims." set to 6 "would 32 allow relied would have his Rule and work he brief, facts a n d , t h u s , he s a y s , hearing offenses, Coleman's that pleaded the for parole instead, trial." contends sufficiently id., ineligible a n d t h a t , h a d he known p. not insisted 10. petition upon release have on Coleman "presented i n seeking relief," " r e l i e f s h o u l d have been g r a n t e d o r , Coleman to present proof of his I d . a t 11. In h i s Rule 32 petition, Coleman stated, in pertinent part: " I t i s C o l e m a n ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t h a d he known that he would not been [sic] eligible for work-release [and p a r o l e ] , ... he w o u l d n o t h a v e pleaded guilty, but would have insisted on p r o c e e d i n g t o t r i a l . Thus, Coleman a v e r s h i s p l e a o f guilty was involuntary [sic] given upon m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of Counsel." Coleman him to has alleged relief. As that, but petition facts noted, for that, Coleman his See supra note alleged attorney's c o n c e r n i n g Coleman's e l i g i b i l i t y 6 i f true, 5. 13 would i n the entitle Rule 32 misrepresentations f o r p a r o l e and work release, 1090975 he would not insisted v. on g o i n g Lockhart, affidavit, support his have pleaded to t r i a l . 474 U.S. Coleman alleged guilty." alleged See that sentence Hill, he had without no sentence." petition are emphasis" on eligibility the plea reason " a t my Therefore, taken his as Furthermore, whether or guilty of parole might e m p h a s i s on not to Specifically, to plead inhis that particular 60. plead Coleman to a 20-year or work release a g e o f 6 3 , a 20 y e a r s e n t e n c e i s i f the a l l e g a t i o n s true, Coleman attorney's for parole Hill of Coleman's placed statements and work r e l e a s e "particular regarding i n deciding his to accept agreement. Based 32 p e t i t i o n circuit at the p o s s i b i l i t y because, Coleman s a i d , a life U.S. have (citing supra would circumstances he p l a c e d i n deciding 474 instead, (1985)). "special that eligibility but, See W i n b u s h , 52, 58-59 the conclusion parole guilty on t h e f o r e g o i n g , was court petition. 7 See "meritorious erred we conclude on i t s f a c e " i n summarily Scott, supra; denying see a l s o that Coleman's and, thus, Coleman's Johnson v. Rule that Rule State, the 32 835 The S t a t e contends t h a t the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals correctly a f f i r m e d t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s summary d i s m i s s a l o f C o l e m a n ' s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , a r g u i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t "Coleman's i n e l i g i b i l i t y f o r work r e l e a s e and p a r o l e i s a 7 14 1090975 So. 2d 1077, contains to (Ala. Crim. matters which, relief, parte 1080 an 471 that So. 2d must 1257, Rash v. State, 968 A l a . R. Crim. j u d g e t o c o n d u c t an ("[W]hen a i f t r u e , would e n t i t l e ( " R u l e 32, 2006) 2001) evidentiary hearing Boatwright, added)); App. So. 1258 2d on held." 554 requires evidentiary hearing appears m e r i t o r i o u s the p e t i t i o n e r (citing ( A l a . 1985)) 552, P., be petition i t s face." on (emphasis (Ala. Crim. the circuit a R u l e 32 (emphasis Ex App. court petition added)). Conclusion Accordingly, we C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s and it to the Coleman's of circuit may In lieu take interrogatories, or the remand t h i s court a l l e g a t i o n that counsel. court reverse of for he an was judgment depositions, the Court case f o r that court an evidentiary denied evidentiary evidence of by as to of remand hearing on effective assistance hearing, affidavits, provided in the circuit written Rule 32.9, c o l l a t e r a l [ r a t h e r than a d i r e c t ] consequence of h i s g u i l t y p l e a and does n o t s u p p o r t t h e p r e j u d i c e p r o n g [of t h e t w o - p a r t t e s t s e t f o r t h i n S t r i c k l a n d v . W a s h i n g t o n , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)]." The S t a t e ' s b r i e f , p. 1 1 . However, the S t a t e d i d not r a i s e t h i s i s s u e i n i t s m o t i o n to d i s m i s s ; t h u s , Coleman h a d no o p p o r t u n i t y t o a d d r e s s t h i s i s s u e b e f o r e t h e circuit court. N o n e t h e l e s s , the o b j e c t of Coleman's p e t i t i o n i s not p e r se h i s i n e l i g i b i l i t y f o r w o r k r e l e a s e a n d p a r o l e ; r a t h e r , i t i s the i n v o l u n t a r i n e s s of h i s g u i l t y p l e a i t s e l f . 15 1090975 Ala. R. Crim. P. In either make specific findings Ala. R. C r i m . P. of fact and C . J . , and Lyons, as r e q u i r e d court shall by Rule 32.9(d), Parker, Murdock, WITH D I R E C T I O N S . Woodall, Bolin, Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . Stuart, in the c i r c u i t 8 R E V E R S E D AND REMANDED Cobb, event, J . ,concurs i n the rationale i n part and concurs the result. We express no o p i n i o n on ineffective-assistance-of-counsel 8 16 the merits claim. of Coleman's 1090975 STUART, Justice concurring The decision his i n the r a t i o n a l e Rule i n this a claim 32, case rests on w h e t h e r of i n e f f e c t i v e A l a . R. Crim. P., petition on i t s f a c e . " was r e q u i r e d t o c o n d u c t an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g . Boatwright, claim evidentiary was counsel i s "meritorious hearing In h i s Rule that i s court See Ex parte I w r i t e to emphasize 32 p e t i t i o n , by r e a s o n f o r work h i s attorney release committed and p a r o l e he was i t s face" and t h a t Coleman a l l e g e d t h a t because h i s attorney Coleman, on an i s required. involuntary eligibility work of counsel I f he d i d , t h e n t h e c i r c u i t 471 S o . 2 d 1257 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . C. reasons I c o n c l u d e t h a t Coleman's i n e f f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e - of-counsel plea and William assistance "meritorious the i n part i n the r e s u l t ) . Coleman p l e a d e d in (concurring of i n e f f e c t i v e and advised he According was to eligible for of the offenses he h a d In pleading his i n e f f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e - o f - c o u n s e l c l a i m , Coleman a l l e g e d that he p l e a d e d g u i l t y belief that for either. of h i m as t o h i s parole. him that when i n l i g h t ineligible assistance had misinformed release his guilty and d i d n o t p r o c e e d t o t r i a l he was e l i g i b l e f o r work 17 release because ofh i s and p a r o l e . In 1090975 essence, Coleman because his parole that, and in maintained attorney supplied work-release so doing, that his plea was "involuntary" him with information eligibility that was his attorney had about erroneous rendered and ineffective assistance. In States Hill v. Lockhart, Supreme C o u r t Strickland v. held 474 U.S. that the 466 U.S. Washington, challenge t o a g u i l t y p l e a b a s e d on counsel. The United States 52 (1985), two-part 668 United test provided (1984), ineffective Supreme C o u r t the applied in to assistance a of stated: "In the c o n t e x t of g u i l t y p l e a s , the f i r s t h a l f of t h e S t r i c k l a n d v. W a s h i n g t o n t e s t i s n o t h i n g more than a restatement of the standard of attorney competence .... The second, or 'prejudice,' r e q u i r e m e n t , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , f o c u s e s on w h e t h e r counsel's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y i n e f f e c t i v e performance a f f e c t e d the outcome of the p l e a p r o c e s s . In other words, in order to satisfy the 'prejudice' r e q u i r e m e n t , t h e d e f e n d a n t m u s t show t h a t t h e r e i s a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t , but for counsel's e r r o r s , he w o u l d n o t h a v e p l e a d e d g u i l t y a n d w o u l d h a v e i n s i s t e d on g o i n g t o t r i a l . " 474 U.S. at In Hill, the habeas corpus federal as 58-59. a r e s u l t of court-appointed petitioner relief ineffective attorney claimed that in his petition his plea was "involuntary" assistance had of provided 18 counsel him with because for his erroneous 1090975 information about h i s p a r o l e Supreme C o u r t r e f u s e d the p e t i t i o n e r had Court eligibility. to address the failed to The United substantive properly plead issue his States because claim. The stated: "In the present case the claimed error of counsel i s e r r o n e o u s a d v i c e as t o e l i g i b i l i t y for parole under the sentence agreed to i n the plea bargain. App. 31. We find i t unnecessary to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e r e may be c i r c u m s t a n c e s under which erroneous advice by counsel as to parole eligibility may be deemed constitutionally i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l , because i n the present case we conclude that petitioner's allegations are insufficient to satisfy the S t r i c k l a n d v. W a s h i n g t o n r e q u i r e m e n t o f ' p r e j u d i c e . ' P e t i t i o n e r d i d not a l l e g e i n h i s habeas petition t h a t , had c o u n s e l c o r r e c t l y i n f o r m e d him about h i s p a r o l e e l i g i b i l i t y d a t e , he w o u l d h a v e p l e a d e d n o t g u i l t y a n d i n s i s t e d on g o i n g t o t r i a l . He a l l e g e d no special circumstances that might support the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t he p l a c e d p a r t i c u l a r e m p h a s i s on h i s parole e l i g i b i l i t y i n d e c i d i n g whether or not to plead g u i l t y . Indeed, p e t i t i o n e r ' s mistaken b e l i e f that he w o u l d become e l i g i b l e for parole after s e r v i n g o n e - t h i r d o f h i s s e n t e n c e w o u l d seem t o h a v e a f f e c t e d not o n l y h i s c a l c u l a t i o n of the time he l i k e l y would serve i f sentenced pursuant to the proposed p l e a agreement, but a l s o h i s c a l c u l a t i o n of t h e t i m e he l i k e l y w o u l d s e r v e i f he w e n t t o t r i a l and were c o n v i c t e d . " 474 U.S. In at 60. pleading counsel, Coleman alleging that his claim satisfied his of the attorney's ineffective first prong performance 19 assistance of of Strickland by was deficient in 1090975 p r o v i d i n g him with work-release eligibility. Coleman that satisfied "but have erroneous the f o r " the pleaded about h i s p a r o l e Unlike petitioner attorney's and special life support of have the deciding majority concluded, ineffective I whether also relied agree the majority's Court 690 of with to that he Therefore, pleaded not trial. and placed eligibility as the claim his conclusion as p l e a d e d b y C o l e m a n , a r e to an from of a entered upon properly would of counsel. misinformation defendant Coleman guilty. Hill, alleging he work-release of entitled consequences plead by and i . e . , h i s age conclusion assistance allegations, is to in proceeded circumstances, p a r t i c u l a r e m p h a s i s on h i s p a r o l e a n d in Strickland misrepresentation would Coleman a l s o p l e a d e d to the second prong guilty expectancy, information the evidentiary counsel guilty an plea misinformation 278-79 "The q u e s t i o n applicant's plea not pleading of Texas stated (Tex. Crim. App. i f the parte that As a the Evans, 1985): for resolution, therefore, of guilty involuntary 20 Coleman defendant guilty. i n Ex the collateral establish even i f Generally, speculative, does in t a k e n as t r u e , hearing. involuntary plea, Criminal Appeals S.W.2d 2 7 4 , about that i s : Is simply 1090975 because h i s attorney relayed erroneous parole e l i g i b i l i t y a d v i c e upon w h i c h a p p l i c a n t r e l i e d , a t least i n part, i n pleading guilty? "... [W]e e x a m i n e t h e i m p o r t a n c e t h a t we w i s h t o attach to parole e l i g i b i l i t y v i s - a - v i s voluntariness o f a g u i l t y p l e a . We do s o f r o m t h e p r e m i s e that some expectations of a defendant about the circumstances or consequences of h i s p l e a , though perhaps important t o him, are j u s t too s p e c u l a t i v e t o w a r r a n t b e i n g g i v e n e f f e c t upon h i s g u i l t y p l e a . I t w o u l d be u n i m a g i n a b l e t o l a b e l a g u i l t y plea [ i n v o l u n t a r y ] b e c a u s e t h e d e f e n d a n t was m i s i n f o r m e d about the q u a l i t y of r e h a b i l i t a t i o n services or l i v i n g conditions or working conditions or s o c i a l conditions, etc., i n prison. This i s so, i n large part, because these things, though important, commonly a r e s u b j e c t t o (and i n f a c t o f t e n do) change. They a r e , a t b e s t , speculative both i n g e n e r a l and as t o a p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l . " L i k e w i s e , p a r o l e becomes an i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r i n the future o f e v e r y a c t u a l and p o t e n t i a l p r i s o n inmate. It i s likely t o be c o n s i d e r e d by most defendants as a factor that influences their d e c i s i o n to accept a p a r t i c u l a r o f f e r of years from the State i n exchange f o r a g u i l t y plea. The c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system accepts t h i s , f o r the w e l l known o b j e c t i v e s of parole are laudatory. But eligibility f o r parole is a fluctual societal d e c i s i o n ; h i g h l y s u b j e c t t o change. As s t a t e d i n H i l l v. L o c k h a r t , 731 F . 2 d 568 ( 8 t h C i r . 1 984 ) , c e r t . g r a n t e d , 470 U.S. 104 9, 105 S . C t . 1 7 4 5 , 84 L . E d . 2 d 811 ( 1 9 8 5 ) : " ' F u r t h e r r e a s o n s ... make i t u n d e s i r a b l e that claimed misadvice on parole eligibility render the plea involuntary. The p e t i t i o n e r ' s b e h a v i o r a n d l e g i s l a t i v e and administrative changes in parole eligibility r u l e s may e f f e c t t h i s date. Every plea bargaining arrangement thus 21 1090975 w o u l d be s u b j e c t t o r e o p e n i n g any t i m e a defendant d i d n o t become eligible for p a r o l e at the time estimated.' "Further, obtaining and more to the point, the o f p a r o l e i s e v e n more e l u s i v e . actual "'Parole i s very much a speculative proposition. I t s happening i s contingent on many f a c t o r s u n k n o w n a n d n o n e x i s t e n t a t t h e t i m e o f a g u i l t y p l e a . F a c t o r s s u c h as the conduct of a p p e l l a n t i n p r i s o n , the composition and a t t i t u d e of the parole board, the p o p u l a t i o n of the p r i s o n system, the i d e n t i t y and a t t i t u d e o f t h e governor, the regulations governing 'good time,' etc., a l l a r e y e t t o b e when t h e d e f e n d a n t decides to plead guilty. The erroneous a d v i c e from c o u n s e l about t h e time frame o f p a r o l e e l i g i b i l i t y i s t h e n a b o u t an e v e n t , p a r o l e , whose t i m e o f o c c u r r e n c e , i f a n y , c a n n o t e v e n be a c c u r a t e l y g u e s s e d a t . ' Ex p a r t e C a r i l l o , 687 S.W. 2 d 320 ( T e x . C r . App. 1985) ( C o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n ) . "We t h i n k , t h e n , t h a t t h e s p e c u l a t i v e n a t u r e o f p a r o l e a t t a i n m e n t i s such as t o d i s c o u n t i t s l e g a l importance on t h e s u b j e c t o f v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f a g u i l t y p l e a . This l e g a l importance i s discounted to the e x t e n t t h a t erroneous a d v i c e o f c o u n s e l on t h e subject of parole e l i g i b i l i t y w i l l not render the plea involuntary." In counsel t h i s case, however, t h e m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by Coleman's was represented more than speculation. I f counsel t h a t C o l e m a n w o u l d be e l i g i b l e of the period, then misinformed the misrepresentation 22 merely f o r work r e l e a s e o r p a r o l e w i t h i n a c e r t a i n p e r i o d and c o u n s e l g r o s s l y Coleman had involved 1090975 mere s p e c u l a t i o n , true, warranted regarding and I c o u l d an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g . work-release speculative however, i n nature, an defendant's not conclude that or parole cannot affirmative eligibility O'Tuel v. Osborne, A the facts, i f misrepresentation attainment, render a which plea involuntary; misrepresentation f o r work r e l e a s e 706 F . 2 d 498 i s so regarding or parole can. ( 4 t h C i r . 198 3 ) ( h o l d i n g a Cf. that t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p l e a was i n v o l u n t a r y b e c a u s e t h e d e f e n d a n t was "grossly misinformed" that i f he would plead guilty in exchange f o r a recommendation of a l i f e s e n t e n c e , he w o u l d b e eligible f o r parole he eligible a f t e r 20 y e a r s , Here, Coleman i n 10 pleaded years, when a n d he r e l i e d that his would on t h a t counsel represented t o h i m t h a t he w o u l d b e e l i g i b l e and when such parole, by law Coleman a misrepresentation cannot i s concrete, Because Coleman a l l e g e d i n h i s p l e a d i n g a c t u a l l y be information). affirmatively f o r work release qualify for either; specific, and facts that, gross. i f proven t o b e t r u e , e s t a b l i s h t h a t he was g r o s s l y m i s i n f o r m e d , t h a t i t was r e a s o n a b l e f o r him t o r e l y upon t h e m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , 23 and 1090975 that a granted, 9 manifest 9 injustice an e v i d e n t i a r y See Rule 14.4(e), would hearing A l a . R. 24 result is Crim. i f relief warranted. P. is not

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.