Title: Ex Parte Woods
Citation: 957 So. 2d 533
Docket Number: 1040143
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: August 25, 2006

957 So. 2d 533 (2006)
Ex parte Fredrick D. WOODS.
(In re Fredrick D. Woods
v.
State of Alabama).
1040143.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
August 25, 2006.
Joseph G. Block, Damon W.D. Wright, and Brian R. Flack of Venable LLP, Washington, D.C.; and Michael Hanle, Birmingham, for petitioner.
*534 Troy King, atty. gen., and Henry M. Johnson, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.
STUART, Justice.[1]
On August 14, 1997, Fredrick D. Woods was convicted of murder made capital because the murder was committed during the course of a first-degree robbery, see § 13A-5-40(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975. On August 15, 1997, by a vote of 10-2, the jury recommended that Woods be sentenced to death. After conducting a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Woods to death. Woods appealed, and his conviction and sentence were affirmed. Woods v. State, 789 So. 2d 896 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), aff'd, 789 So. 2d 941 (Ala.2001).
On July 26, 2002, Woods filed a petition for postconviction relief, pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P. On September 27, 2002, the State responded. On November 16, 2002, Woods filed an amended petition. On December 19, 2002, the circuit court conducted a status conference to narrow the issues presented by Woods's petition and to identify any claims that should be precluded. At the close of the conference, the circuit court ordered both parties to submit proposed orders by January 31, 2003. On January 24, 2003, instead of filing a proposed order as directed by the circuit court, Woods filed a second amended petition. On January 28, 2003, the State objected to Woods's second amendment, arguing:
On January 30, 2003, the circuit court struck Woods's second amended petition. On February 7, 2003, the State filed its proposed order, which summarily dismissed all of Woods's claims. On February 11, 2003, Woods moved the court to reconsider its order striking his second amended petition. On February 20, 2003, Woods filed his proposed order. On July 2, 2003, a little less than a year after Woods filed his Rule 32 petition, the circuit court, adopting the State's order in its entirety, summarily dismissed the petition.
Woods appealed the summary dismissal of his petition to the Court of Criminal Appeals. In his brief to the Court of Criminal Appeals, Woods contended that the circuit court exceeded the scope of its discretion in striking his second amended petition. On August 27, 2004, the Court of Criminal Appeals, applying the reasoning and holding in Coral v. State, 900 So. 2d 1274 (Ala.Crim.App.2004), which cites McWilliams v. State, 897 So. 2d 437 (Ala. Crim.App.2004), and Rhone v. State, 900 So. 2d 443 (Ala.Crim.App.2004), held that the circuit court did not exceed its discretion in striking Woods's second amended petition. Recognizing that the second amended petition was not based on surprise, newly discovered evidence, or changed circumstance, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the circuit court did not err in striking Woods's second amended petition, and it affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of Woods's Rule 32 petition. *535 Woods v. State, 957 So. 2d 492 (Ala. Crim.App.2004).
Woods filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court on December 3, 2004. On June 22, 2006, this Court issued the writ to determine, among other matters, whether the circuit court exceeded the scope of its discretion by striking Woods's second amended petition.
The standard for reviewing a circuit court's judgment denying a petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., is whether the circuit court exceeded the scope of its discretion in denying the petition. Strickland v. State, 771 So. 2d 1123, 1125 (Ala.Crim. App.1999). Moreover, "when the facts are undisputed and an appellate court is presented with pure questions of law, that court's review in a Rule 32 proceeding is de novo." Ex parte White, 792 So. 2d 1097, 1098 (Ala.2001).
Woods contends that the Court of Criminal Appeals' holding  that the circuit court did not err in striking his second amended petition  conflicts with this Court's holding in Ex parte Rhone, 900 So. 2d 455 (Ala.2004), a decision issued on October 1, 2004, after the circuit court struck Woods's second amended petition and after the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the circuit court's decision in Woods. In Ex parte Rhone, this Court stated that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in placing on Rhone the initial burden of showing diligence in the filing of his amendment and overruled Rhone v. State and other cases upon which the Court of Criminal Appeals had relied in reaching its holding in Woods.
Ex parte Rhone set forth a new standard for determining whether to grant leave to amend a Rule 32 petition, stating: "[I]t is clear that only grounds such as actual prejudice or undue delay will support a trial court's refusal to allow, or to consider, an amendment to a Rule 32 petition." 900 So. 2d  at 458. In Ex parte Jenkins, [Ms. 1031313, April 8, 2005] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.2005), Justice Lyons, writing for the majority, analyzed this Court's holding in Ex parte Rhone, stating:
___ So.2d at ___.
In April 2005, the Court of Criminal Appeals, applying our holding in Ex parte Rhone, reversed a circuit court's dismissal of amended Rule 32 petitions in Wilson v. State, 911 So. 2d 40 (Ala.Crim.App.2005). In conducting the analysis, the Court of Criminal Appeals noted that all of petitioner's amended petitions were filed within the limitations period of Rule 32.2(c), Ala. R.Crim. P., and that the amended petitions addressed concerns raised by the State in its answer and responded to the affidavit from the petitioner's trial counsel, which was attached to the State's answer. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the circuit court had exceeded the scope of its discretion in refusing to consider the amended petitions, reasoning, "[c]oncerns of undue delay and undue prejudice to the State were not implicated as a result of these amendments; concerns of fairness and due process were implicated." 911 So. 2d  at 46.
In its brief to this Court, the State admits that when this Court's holding in Ex parte Rhone and its progeny is applied to the facts of this case, the circuit court exceeded the scope of its discretion in striking Woods's second amended petition, and it requests that we remand the cause. We agree. The facts of this case do not establish that the circuit court's consideration *537 of Woods's second amended petition would give rise to actual prejudice to the State or cause undue delay. Therefore, the circuit court exceeded its discretion in striking Woods's second amended petition, and a remand to the circuit court is proper to allow that court to consider Woods's second amended petition.
In light of our disposition of this case, we pretermit consideration of Woods's other arguments.
For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed and this cause is remanded to that court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
NABERS, C.J., and SEE, LYONS, HARWOOD, WOODALL, SMITH, BOLIN, and PARKER, JJ., concur.
[1]  This case was originally assigned to another Justice on this Court; it was reassigned to Justice Stuart on May 10, 2006.