¶1Lester Lee Moton, Jr., pro se.
¶2Troy King, atty. gen., and Jennifer M. Garrett, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
¶3Alabama Supreme Court 1050600.
¶4McMILLAN, Presiding Judge.
¶5AFFIRMED BY UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM.
¶6COBB, J., concurs. BASCHAB and WISE, JJ., concur in the result. SHAW, J., concurs in the result, with opinion.
¶7SHAW, Judge, concurring in the result.
¶8I seriously question the propriety of relying on Clemons v. State, [Ms. CR-01-1355, June 24, 2005] ___ So.2d ___, ___ (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (opinion on return to remand), to hold that the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel made by Lester Lee Moton, Jr., were time-barred, in light of the "mailbox rule" that is applied to pro se inmates. See, e.g., Ex parte Allen,825 So.2d 271, 272 (Ala.2002) ("Alabama courts have held that a pro se incarcerated petitioner/appellant is considered to have `filed' a Rule 32 petition, a notice of appeal, or a petition for a writ of certiorari when those documents are given to prison officials for mailing."); Holland v. State,621 So.2d 373, 375 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993) ("[W]e hold that a pro se incarcerated petitioner `files' a Rule 32 petition when he hands the petition over to prison authorities for mailing."). However, after reviewing the record, I believe that Moton's allegations were not pleaded with sufficient specificity to satisfy the requirements in Rule 32.3 and 32.6(b), Ala. R.Crim.P.; therefore, I concur in the result.