[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
from Shelby Circuit Court (CC-04-1257.61).
Maxwell, Jr., of Maxwell Tillman-Trial Lawyers, Birmingham,
Marshall, atty. gen., and Michael Nunnelley, asst. atty.
gen., for appellee.
Brad McAnally appeals the circuit court's summary
dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief filed
pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., in which he attacked
his January 2006 guilty-plea conviction for criminal
solicitation to commit murder and his resulting May 2006
sentence of life imprisonment. McAnally did not appeal his
conviction and sentence. However, in 2007, McAnally filed a
Rule 32 petition challenging his conviction and sentence. The
circuit court summarily dismissed that petition, and this
Court affirmed the dismissal on appeal in an unpublished
memorandum issued on August 10, 2012. McAnally v.
State, (No. CR-10-1314), 152 So.3d 455 (Ala.Crim.App.
March 12, 2018, McAnally filed this, his second, Rule 32
petition. He filed the petition pro se and argued that the
trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea or
to sentence him. McAnally subsequently retained counsel to
represent him, and the circuit court granted counsel leave to
file an amended petition. McAnally, through counsel, filed an
amended petition on December 28, 2018, in which he alleged:
(1) that his guilty plea was involuntary because, he said, he
had "the distinct impression" that he would receive
a lesser sentence than life imprisonment (C. 89); and (2)
that his trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to
withdraw his guilty plea when he was sentenced to life
imprisonment. McAnally also argued in the amended petition
that he was entitled to equitable tolling because, he said,
he had retained counsel to file his first Rule 32 petition,
but counsel had failed to properly file that petition within
the limitations period in Rule 32.2(c), Ala. R. Crim. P.
Therefore, McAnally concluded, he should be permitted to
pursue the claims in the instant petition. Without receiving
a response from the State, the circuit court summarily
dismissed McAnally's amended petition on February 25,
2019, without stating grounds. McAnally did not file a
first contends that the circuit court erred in summarily
dismissing his petition without stating its reasons for doing
so. However, "[t]he general rules of preservation apply
to Rule 32 proceedings." Boyd v. State, 913
So.2d 1113, 1123 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003). McAnally did not raise
this issue in the circuit court; therefore, it was not
properly preserved for
review. See, e.g., Robinson v. State, 869 So.2d
1191, 1193 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003), and Whitehead v.
State, 593 So.2d 126, 130 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991).
Moreover, even if this issue had been properly preserved, it
is meritless because "Rule 32.7 does not require the
trial court to make specific findings of fact upon a summary
dismissal." Fincher v. State, 724 So.2d 87, 89
also reasserts on appeal the two claims from his amended
petition and contends that the circuit court erred in
summarily dismissing those claims. Specifically, McAnally
argues that he pleaded both claims with sufficient
specificity to satisfy the pleading requirements in Rule 32.3
and Rule 32.6(b), Ala. R. Crim. P., and that, for the ...