Case Title: Ex parte Renaldo Chante' Adams. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Renaldo Chante' Adams v. State of Alabama) (Montgomery Circuit Court: CC97-2403.60; Criminal Appeals : CR-07-1034). Writ Denied. No Opinion.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1091160

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2010-08-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: 08/20/2010
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
SPECIAL TERM, 2010
____________________
1091160
____________________
Ex parte Renaldo Chante Adams
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
(In re: Renaldo Chante Adams
v.
State of Alabama)
(Montgomery Circuit Court, CC-97-2403.60;
Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-07-1034)
STUART, Justice.
WRIT DENIED.  NO OPINION.
1091160
2
Lyons, Woodall, Smith, Bolin, and Murdock, JJ., concur.
Cobb, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
Parker and Shaw,* JJ., recuse themselves.
*Justice Shaw was a member of the Court of Criminal
Appeals when that court considered this case.
1091160
3
COBB, Chief Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in
part).
I respectfully dissent from the denial of the petition
for the writ of certiorari with regard to the claims of the
petitioner, Renaldo Chante Adams, that he was not served with
a proposed draft order the State submitted to the trial court.
Adams seeks review of the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision
under Rule 39(a)(1)(D), Ala. R. App. P., on the ground that
that decision conflicts with prior decisions of this Court,
such as  Ex parte Burgess, 21 So. 3d 746, 754 (Ala. 2008),
recognizing that a petitioner cannot be expected to raise a
claim until facts underlying the claim become known to him. 
Adams filed a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition for
postconviction relief, attacking his conviction for capital
murder and his sentence of life imprisonment without the
possibility of parole.  The State answered and moved to
dismiss Adams's petition, arguing that Adams's claims were
procedurally barred.
Adams contends that, with its response
to the petition, the State also filed with the court a
proposed order denying the petition, but, he says, he was not
served with a copy of the proposed order.  Further, he
contends that he did not learn of the existence of the
1091160
4
proposed order until he appealed the denial of the Rule 32
petition and received a copy of the record.  Adams raised the
issue of the State's alleged ex parte communication on appeal,
but the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that it could not
consider the issue because the issue had not been presented to
the Rule 32 court in Adams's February 11, 2008, motion to
reconsider the denial of his Rule 32 petition.  Adams
maintains that he could not have raised the issue in his
February 11, 2008, motion to reconsider because he did not
learn of the facts underlying the claim until April 18, 2008,
when the record on appeal was completed.
I would grant certiorari review to determine whether the
record supports Adams's claim that he was not served with the
State's proposed order and that he did not learn of the
existence of the proposed order until he received a copy of
the record on appeal.  If the record supports that claim, then
I believe this Court should reverse that part of the judgment
of the Court of Criminal Appeals refusing to address the issue
and instruct the Court of Criminal Appeals to consider the
claim on the merits.  
1091160
5
I do not believe that Adams has any other mechanism by
which to assert the claim that he was denied the opportunity
to respond to the State's proposed order.  The claim cannot be
considered to be based on newly discovered evidence within the
contemplation of Rule 32.1(e), Ala. R. Crim. P., because the
evidence would not "require that [Adams's] conviction or
sentence be vacated."  At most, Adams would be entitled only
to the opportunity to respond to the State's proposed order.
Moreover, because Rule 32 is a mechanism to gain relief from
a conviction or sentence -- and not to gain relief from a
prior order denying an earlier Rule 32 petition –- I know of
no authority that would allow Adams to file a subsequent Rule
32 petition attacking a judgment in a prior Rule 32
proceeding.  
I disagree that Adams should have to file another Rule 32
petition.  However, because the Court has denied the petition
for certiorari in this case, he has no other recourse.  Under
the circumstances, he should not be precluded from filing a
subsequent Rule 32 petition, at least with regard to his
argument that he was not served with the State's proposed
order.