Apicella v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. James v. Culliver

    Civil Action No. CV-10-S-2929-S (N.D. Ala. Sep. 30, 2014)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that a petitioner will be deemed to have procedurally defaulted a claim if the petitioner "fails to initially present a federal claim to the state courts at the time, and in the manner, dictated by the state's procedural rules," and the state court thus decides "that the claim is not entitled to review on its merits"

    An Alabama trial court's authority under this rule to either summarily dismiss, or grant leave to amend, a Rule 32 petition has been firmly established and regularly followed. See, e.g., Ex parte McCall, 30 So. 2d 400, 403-04 (Ala. 2008); Apicella v. State, 87 So. 3d 1155, 1160 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011); Wilson v. State, 935 So. 2d 494, 497 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005); Miles v. State, 845 So. 2d 930, 832-33 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001); Makres v. State, 739 So. 2d 1141, 1143 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998); Harper v. State, 676 So. 2d 949, 951 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995).

  2. Jones v. State

    185 So. 3d 1142 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014)   Cited 1 times
    Reversing circuit court's judgment denying a petitioner leave to amend his petition when petitioner had not already filed multiple amendments or unreasonably delayed requesting to file an amendment

    The teachings of Ex parte Rhone and Ex parte Jenkins have been followed numerous times. See, e.g., Ex parte Woods, 957 So.2d 533 (Ala.2006); Anderson v. State, 135 So.3d 994 (Ala.Crim.App.2013); Ingram v. State, 103 So.3d 86 (Ala.Crim.App.2012); Apicella v. State, 87 So.3d 1155 (Ala.Crim.App.2011); Broadnax v. State, 987 So.2d 631 (Ala.Crim.App.2007); Smith v. State, 961 So.2d 916 (Ala.Crim.App.2006); and Wilson v. State, 911 So.2d 40 (Ala.Crim.App.2005).The record in this case contains no indication that any undue delay or undue prejudice would have resulted if the circuit court had granted Jones's request to amend his petition.