Cf. Tarver v. State, 761 So.2d 266, 268 (Ala. Crim.App. 2000) ("[W]e have repeatedly held that the procedural bars in Rule 32 apply equally to all cases, including those in which the death penalty has been imposed. See Nicks v. State, 783 So.2d 895 (Ala.Cr.App. 1999); Horsley v. State, 675 So.2d 908 (Ala.Cr.App. 1996); Thompson v. State, 615 So.2d 129 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 976, 114 S.Ct. 467, 126 L.Ed.2d 418 (1993)."). Keddie-Hill and Tillman cite Brown v. State, 565 So.2d 585 (Ala. 1990) (plurality opinion), in support of their argument that they may proceed with a civil class action to challenge the DNA database fee.
We have often stated that the procedural bars of Rule 32 apply with equal force to all cases, even those involving the death penalty. See Horsley v. State, 675 So.2d 908 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996), and Thompson v. State, 615 So.2d 129 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 976 (1993). Hutcherson argues in his Rule 32 petition that he was denied a fair trial (he asserts several different constitutional grounds in support of this argument), that his guilty plea was improperly induced; that the trial court failed to comply with the procedural requirements for accepting a guilty plea, and that he was denied the constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel (he cites 30 different grounds in support of this contention).
Also, we have repeatedly held that the procedural bars in Rule 32 apply equally to all cases, including those in which the death penalty has been impsoed. See Nicks v. State, [783] So.2d [895] (Ala.Cr.App. 1999); Horsley v. State, 675 So.2d 908 (Ala.Cr.App. 1996); Thompson v. State, 615 So.2d 129 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 976 (1993)."