Hall v. Thomas

• Decision Date: 20 July 2010
• Docket Number: No. 09-12728.,09-12728.
• Citation: 611 F.3d 1259
• Parties: Darryl Pierrie HALL, Petitioner-Appellant,v.Willie THOMAS, Warden, Troy King, Attorney General of the State of Alabama, Respondents-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

611 F.3d 1259

Darryl Pierrie HALL, Petitioner-Appellant,v.Willie THOMAS, Warden, Troy King, Attorney General of the State of Alabama, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 09-12728.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 20, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Thomas Martele Goggans, Montgomery, AL, for Hall.

Yvonne A.H. Saxon, Montgomery, AL, for Thomas.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

Before HULL, WILSON and FARRIS,^* Circuit Judges.

HULL, Circuit Judge:

Alabama prisoner Darryl Pierrie Hall appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. After review and oral argument, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In Alabama state court, Hall was convicted of three counts of first-degree robbery and four counts of second-degree kidnaping.¹ He received concurrent sentences of life imprisonment on each robbery conviction and twenty years' imprisonment on each kidnaping conviction. Hall's § 2254 petition claims that his confession was not knowing and voluntary and his trial counsel was ineffective.

A. Hall's Arrest and Indictment

The state charges against Hall stem from his participation with Alonzo Leak in a robbery and kidnaping on October 15, 1999. Leak and Hall, both juveniles, kidnaped and robbed four adults (three women and one man) at the Little People's Workshop, a day care center in Montgomery, Alabama. Leak raped one of the women and tried to rape another. At the time of the crimes, Leak was 17 and Hall was three weeks shy of his 16th birthday.

The district court summarized Leak's involvement as follows:

In the early evening hours of October 15, 1999, Leak entered [the] day care center ... and pulled a gun on its owner. He then corralled the owner and the other adults in the building, a parent and her male friend, and herded them into a bathroom. He took them out of the bathroom in stages and had them bind each other, but placed them in various rooms in the small center. He periodically left them unattended and would return to ask the owner for information related to items in the building. After the victims were bound, another parent came into the center to pay her day care fees. Leak threatened her with a gun, and she complied with his request to bind the remaining unbound victim, and then, he proceeded to rape her. He attempted to rape the other parent as well, physically assaulting her with his hands and gun, and using others to disrobe her. He never followed through on the rape because the victim lied and said she had a sexually transmitted disease .... Leak eventually left, and the victims called for help.

Hall v. Thomas, 623 F.Supp.2d 1302, 1305-06 (M.D.Ala.2009) (footnote omitted). As to Hall's involvement, the district court pointed out that no victim actually saw Hall: “The victims testified that throughout the encounter there appeared to be other accomplices in the building or that Leak spoke of other accomplices, but no one witnessed another participant.” Id. at 1306.

The day after the crimes, police identified Leak as a perpetrator, arrested and took him to police headquarters, and questioned him, at which time Leak immediately implicated Hall. Id. Hall lived near the Little People's Workshop and used to attend it. Id. Leak told police that “Hall told him that committing the crimes would position Leak to join a gang, and that Hall was outside the center during the attack providing advice to him on how to carry out the crimes.” Id. at 1306.

On October 17, 1999, two days after the crimes and one day after Leak's arrest, police officers, including Officer M.L. Major, came to Hall's house. Id. Hall's parents were home and invited Major into the house. Id. Officer Major arrested Hall and brought him to the police station. Prior to any questioning, Officers Major and W.T. Grant read Hall both his Miranda rights and the state-required warning for juveniles subject to interrogation. Id. Hall signed forms waiving those rights. Id. Hall confessed to the robbery and kidnaping crimes.² Id. His confession was recorded on audiotape.

An Alabama grand jury indicted Hall on three counts of first-degree robbery and four counts of second-degree kidnaping. Hall pled not guilty.

B. Officer Major's Testimony in Suppression Hearing

On March 9, 2000, Hall filed a motion to suppress his audiotaped confession, arguing it was involuntary, coerced, and made without a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. Hall alleged that his parents were not permitted to be present and that the officers obtained his confession through “[p]sychological ploys, threats and promises, fatigue and physical violence” in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The state trial court held a suppression hearing. Six witnesses testified, including Officer Major, Hall's father, and Hall.

Officer Major testified about his investigation and about Leak's and Hall's statements. After Leak implicated Hall, Officer Major went to Hall's house and arrested him. Officer Major advised Hall of the crimes he was being arrested for but did not question Hall at his house or read his Miranda rights then. Hall's mother and father were present at Hall's house and observed Hall's arrest.

At the police station, Hall was taken to Officer Major's office to be read his Miranda rights and questioned. Hall's left arm was handcuffed to the desk, which Officer Major testified was standard procedure. Hall's right hand was free.

Before any questioning, Officer Major read Hall both his state juvenile rights and his adult Miranda rights forms.³ Officer Major testified that he also gave Hall an opportunity to read the forms on his own. Hall read and signed both forms, confirming he understood his rights and agreed to answer questions. The content of the state juvenile rights form made it clear Hall had a right to remain silent, a right to counsel, and a right to communicate with his parent before questioning as follows:

Before asking you any questions, I must explain to you that you can remain silent that anything you say can be used against you in court, that you can talk to a lawyer first, and that you have the right to the advice and presence of a lawyer even though you cannot afford to hire one. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer and want to have one present during interrogation, the court will appoint one before we question you. If you want to answer questions now before you-if you want to answer now, you can do so, but stop answering at any time. You have the right to communicate with your parent or guardian before questioning and, if necessary, reasonable means will be provided for you to do so.

(Emphasis added). Officer Major signed the form to indicate that he had read this paragraph to Hall. The form also contained this paragraph that Hall read aloud to Officer Major, and which Officer Major then read back to him, stating Hall was willingly answering questions and knew what he was doing:

I fully understand the foregoing statement and do willingly agree to answer questions. I understand and know what I am doing. No promise or threats have been made to me by anyone and no pressure of any kind has been made against me by anyone.

Hall also signed below this paragraph indicating he had read it. The state juvenile rights form was dated October 17, 1999 and indicated that Officer Major read the form to Hall at 5:42 p.m.

Out of an abundance of caution, Officer Major then also read aloud, and Hall also signed, the adult Miranda rights form at 5:44 p.m. The only difference between the state juvenile rights form and the adult Miranda rights form was that the adult form did not contain this sentence: “You have the right to communicate with your parent or guardian before questioning. If necessary, reasonable means will be provided for you to do so.” Otherwise, the forms were the same.

During trial, Officer Major testified that after Hall signed the forms waiving his state juvenile rights and his Miranda rights at 5:42 p.m. and 5:44 p.m., respectively, and before taking Hall's taped statement at 7:06 p.m., Officer Major and Hall “sat there and generally talked,” and Officer Major then “jotted a few things down” and went and talked to his supervisor. Paperwork was also completed in the intervening time. When the audiotaping began at 7:06 p.m., Officer Major again read both the state juvenile rights and adult Miranda rights. On the audiotape, Hall again said that he understood both his state juvenile rights and his adult Miranda rights. Officer Major testified that Hall “said yes, sir to both his juvenile rights, because I read both of them on tape to him, and he said yes, sir to his adult rights as well. They were both read to him.” At the end of the confession, Hall again confirmed on audiotape that he had twice been advised of his state juvenile rights and adult Miranda rights by Officer Major, and that he understood them. Hall also stated that no threats had been made to him. The audiotape of the statement began at 7:06 p.m. and ended at 7:26 p.m.⁴ Officer Major testified that Hall's father wanted to come to the police station and was at the police station but did not ask to be in the room during the questioning.⁵ According to Officer Major, Hall himself never asked for his father to be in the room with him. Officer Major did not ask Hall's father if he wanted to come in. During the suppression hearing, Hall's attorney asked Officer Major whether, at the time of Hall's arrest at his home, Hall's father said he wanted to be present for the questioning. Officer Major responded the father said he wanted to be present but the fact remains that the son, after being read his rights, never asked for his father or an attorney:

I don't remember ... [the father's] exact words. I know he said he wanted to be present; therefore, I told him how to get to police headquarters. He came down. The fact remains, when his son was read his Miranda rights, he did not ask for his father.

...