Title: Ex Parte State
Citation: 608 So. 2d 345
Docket Number: 1910648
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: July 17, 1992

608 So. 2d 345 (1992)
Ex parte State of Alabama.
(In re James Charles BISHOP, Jr.
v.
STATE).
1910648.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
July 17, 1992.
*346 James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Beth Jackson Hughes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
James Charles Bishop, Jr., pro se.
MADDOX, Justice.
The State of Alabama petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari after the Court of Criminal Appeals had refused to allow the State to file an application for rehearing on the ground that that court no longer accepted applications for rehearing on "intervening remands," i.e., orders remanding the cause but not making a final determination of it. We granted the writ to review that decision. We now reverse and remand.
The following legal questions are presented:
The State's application for rehearing in the Court of Criminal Appeals was accompanied by a motion made pursuant to the provisions of Rule 39(k), A.R.App.P., in which the State asked that Court to make the following findings of fact:
We first address the question of whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in refusing to accept the State's application for rehearing in this case. We hold that it did.
We recognize that this Court has held that the provisions of Rule 39 are inapplicable until there has been a final decision in the Court of Criminal Appeals, but that rule is not applicable here.
In Ex parte Pierce, 576 So. 2d 258 (Ala. 1991), the petitioner (Pierce) was convicted of intentional murder and was sentenced to death. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, but remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing on the ground that the admission of a victim impact statement during Pierce's sentencing hearing violated his Eighth Amendment rights.
Pierce asked this Court to review the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 39(c) Ala.R.App.P., which requires this Court to grant certiorari petitions in cases in which a sentence of death is imposed, as a matter of right. In deciding whether the Court of Criminal Appeals' affirmance of the petitioner's conviction constituted a "decision" within the meaning of Rule 39, Ala.R.App. P., this Court stated:
We denied Pierce's petition as premature because the Court of Criminal Appeals, even though it had affirmed Pierce's conviction, had not yet affirmed his sentence of death; thus, an issue still remained for that court to resolve concerning Pierce's sentence.
In the present case, the Court of Criminal Appeals has determined, as a matter of law, that Bishop's Rule 32 petition was not precluded unless and until the State responded to it and sustained its burden of showing that it was precluded. In short, a majority of that Court has determined that the provisions of Rule 32, Ala.R.Cr.P., prohibit the dismissal of a petition, in every case, unless the State has responded to the petition and proved any alleged ground of preclusion. Consequently, the decision is a final decision as contemplated by the provisions of Rule 39, Ala.R.App.P. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and we remand the cause to that Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Because we have determined that the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals is a final decision, we now address the merits of the State's petition. On the merits, we agree with the view expressed by Judge Bowen in his dissent, joined in by Judge Montiel, that the trial court did not err in dismissing the petition, based on the circumstances of this particular case. As Judge Bowen said: "Where a simple reading of a petition for post-conviction relief shows that, assuming every allegation of the petition to be true, it is obviously without merit or is precluded, the circuit court *348 [may] summarily dismiss that petition without requiring a response from the district attorney."
Based on the foregoing, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the cause to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SHORES, ADAMS, HOUSTON, STEAGALL, KENNEDY and INGRAM, JJ., concur.