Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): mechanism by which a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent may file a “postadjudication” petition challenging counsel’s effectiveness. Rule 1(a), Ala. R. Juv. P., explains, in relevant part: “If no procedure is specifically provided in these Rules [of Juvenile Procedure] or by statute, ... the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure shall be applicable to those matters that are considered criminal in nature.” (Emphasis added,) Because no procedural mechanism for “postadjudication” petitions are specifically provided for in either the Alabama Rules of Juvenile Procedure or a statute, W.B.S. attempts to seek relief through the use of Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P. Because juvenile-delinquency proceedings are “quasi-criminal in nature,” see Driskill v. State, 376 So.2d 678, 679 (Ala. 1979) (<HOLDING>), and because Rule 1(a), Ala. R. Juv. P., 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that probation revocation proceedings are clearly not criminal proceedings (B) holding that private attorney who acted as courtappointed counsel for child in state juvenile delinquency proceedings was not acting under color of state law (C) recognizing a right of access to civil proceedings (D) holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to civil deportation proceedings and noting the rules incompatibility with the streamlined administrative nature of such proceedings (E) recognizing the quasicriminal nature of delinquency proceedings
Output (English): holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to civil deportation proceedings and noting the rules incompatibility with the streamlined administrative nature of such proceedings