Title: Ex parte State of Alabama. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Joseph Wayne Madden v. State of Alabama)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1051078
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: May 25, 2007

REL: 05/25/2007 State v. Madden
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)
242-4621), 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
OCTOBER TERM, 2006-2007
_________________________
1051078
_________________________
Ex parte State of Alabama
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
(In re:  Joseph Wayne Madden
v. 
State of Alabama)
(Marion Circuit Court, CC-82-34.61;
Court of Criminals Appeals, CR-04-1201)
MURDOCK, Justice.
1051078
2
In August 1982, Joseph Wayne Madden pleaded guilty to
three counts of receiving stolen property in the first degree.
In 2005, Madden filed a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition,
contending that the indictments upon which his guilty-plea
convictions were based were void because the indictments
omitted an essential element of the offense -- that he had
"intentionally" received the stolen property.  Madden
contended that his claims were jurisdictional and that they
could therefore be raised at any time. 
The trial court denied Madden's petition, and Madden
appealed.  The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the judgment
of the trial court denying Madden's petition.  Madden v.
State, [Ms. CR-04-1201, Feb. 3, 2006] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala.
Crim. App. 2006).  In reliance on Cogman v. State, 870 So. 2d
762 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003), Grant v. State, 904 So. 2d 365
(Ala. Crim. App. 2005), and Ex parte Lewis, 811 So. 2d 485
(Ala. 2001), the Court of Criminal Appeals held (1) that the
omission from an indictment of an essential element of the
charged offense is a jurisdictional defect, and (2) that the
failure to raise such a defect at trial or on direct appeal
1051078
3
does not constitute a waiver.  The State petitioned this Court
for a writ of certiorari, which we granted. 
After we issued the writ of certiorari in the present
case, we issued our opinion in Ex parte Seymour, 946 So. 2d
536 (Ala. 2006), which held (1) that a defect in an indictment
is not a jurisdictional error, and (2) that a claim based on
a defective indictment is subject to the same preclusive bars
as any other nonjurisdictional error, overruling Lewis and
other Alabama cases that have held to the contrary. 
Based on our decision in Seymour, we reverse the judgment
of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the cause for
proceedings consistent with Seymour.  
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
See, Lyons, Woodall, Stuart, Smith, Bolin, and Parker,
JJ., concur.
Cobb, C.J., recuses herself.