Ray v. Ala. Dep't of Corr.
Decision Date | 06 January 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 13–15673.,13–15673. |
Citation | 809 F.3d 1202 |
Parties | Domineque RAY, Petitioner–Appellant, v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, Attorney General, State of Alabama, Respondents–Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Peter Michael Racher, Josh S. Tatum, Theresa M. Willard, Plews Shadley Racher & Braun, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Petitioner–Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
Before MARCUS, WILSON, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
Alabama death row inmate Domineque Ray appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Ray was convicted of capital murder in the course of first-degree rape and first-degree robbery. The appeal before us concerns whether Ray's counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase of his trial by not investigating and presenting readily available mitigating evidence regarding his traumatizing childhood, mental deficiencies, and steroid abuse
.
In September 2007, Ray was indicted and charged with capital murder in the death of fifteen-year-old Tiffany Harville, whose remains were found in Selma, Alabama.
The trial court made the following findings of fact concerning the offense:
, due to the decomposition of the body.
Ray v. State, 809 So.2d 875, 879–80 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations and footnote in the original).
Initially, Alston Keith and George Jones were appointed to represent Ray. The parties jointly requested that Ray receive a mental health examination, which the trial court allowed. Dr. Ronan, a staff psychologist with the State of Alabama's Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, performed a mental health examination of Ray and reported Ray was competent to stand trial. Ray declined a favorable plea offer and reportedly told counsel he knew witnesses of help to his case, but he refused to provide counsel with their names or anticipated testimony. Upon Keith and Jones's request, the court relieved them of the representation and appointed William Whatley and Juliana Taylor to represent Ray.2
After a two-day trial, the jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict, convicting Ray of both Count 1 (murder during the commission of rape, first degree) and Count 2 (murder during the commission of robbery, first degree). In preparation for the penalty phase, Ray and his mother, Gladys, provided defense counsel with a list of people to contact, but counsel's efforts proved largely unsuccessful. Some potential witnesses refused to answer their doors, while at least one other answered and stated: Ray told counsel that his brother, Europe, was "not available and not around and not in the picture," and forbade them from contacting the mother of his child. Whatley and Taylor made no attempt to contact either Europe or the mother of Ray's child. During the penalty phase before the jury, Whatley and Taylor presented only Gladys as a witness. The court also conducted a separate sentencing hearing, at which defense counsel presented eight witnesses to speak to Ray's nonviolent nature; seven of these witnesses recommended Ray receive a life sentence without parole rather than the death penalty.
The court entered an order sentencing Ray to death. The Sentencing Order stated that the Government proved beyond a reasonable doubt the following aggravating factors: Ray had been previously convicted of another capital offense (murder of the Mabin brothers); Ray committed the Harville murder in the course of or while attempting to commit first degree rape; and Ray committed the Harville murder in the course of or while attempting to commit first degree robbery. Further, the sole statutory mitigating factor was Ray's age at the time of the offense (nineteen years old) and the only non-statutory mitigating factors were evidence of Ray's "unfortunate family life"; character evidence reflecting his helpfulness to others and easygoing behavior; that he had a child; good behavior during incarceration; and testimony from witnesses that he deserved life without parole. After weighing the aggravating factors and mitigating circumstances, the court concluded that the facts warranted the death penalty.
Ray directly appealed his conviction and sentence, but the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed and both the Alabama Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari. Ray then filed a Rule 32 petition to collaterally attack his conviction. New counsel represented Ray in these state post-conviction proceedings, and argued, inter alia, that Ray received ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his trial. The state trial court held an extensive post-conviction evidentiary hearing at which it received testimony from Ray's family members, including Europe; Whatley and Taylor, Ray's trial counsel; multiple mental health professionals; and a social worker. These witnesses presented disturbing testimony concerning Ray's childhood and mental health. In particular, Europe testified to the physical and sexual abuse he and his brother suffered as children; their abandonment in Chicago; Ray's depression, alcoholism, and suicide attempts; and the violence they witnessed against their mother. Whatley and Taylor explained that they never requested public health or school records, and, separately, that they declined to pursue a mental health or steroid abuse
defense based only on their own observations of Ray and Dr. Ronan's report, rather than arranging for additional testing or evaluation. See
Ray v. State, 80 So.3d 965, 969, 989, 997 (Ala.Crim.App.2011). After considering this additional evidence, the state trial court wrote a 107–page order denying Ray's petition in its entirety. Specifically, the court explained: 3
Id. at 985 (citation omitted) (quoting the state trial court). Citing this particular portion of the order, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. See
id. The Alabama Supreme Court once more denied a writ of certiorari.
Ray filed a timely petition for a writ of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Daniel v. Comm'r, Alab. Dep't of Corr.
...STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo the District Court's ultimate decision denying a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Ray v. Ala. Dep't of Corr., 809 F.3d 1202, 1207 (11th Cir.2016). “We review the District Court's legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” Hardwick v. ......
-
Johnston v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
...circumstances in this case Johnston would have had to introduce equally powerful mitigating circumstances. See Ray v. Ala. Dep’t of Corr., 809 F.3d 1202, 1210–11 (11th Cir. 2016) (concluding petitioner could not show prejudice despite "profound and compelling" mitigating evidence because of......
-
Ray v. Dunn
...Ray v. Thomas, No. 11-cv-543, 2013 WL 5979757, at *9 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 12, 2013). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Ray v. Ala. Dep't of Corr., 809 F.3d 1202, 1211 (11th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 417 (2016), reh'g denied, 137 S. Ct. 844 (2017). On November 6, 2018, the Supreme Court o......
-
Pace v. Warden, Ga. Diagnostic & Classification Prison
... ... [section] 2254 petition." Smith v. Comm'r, Ala ... Dep't of Corr. , 924 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th Cir ... 2019). Under the Antiterrorism ... (11th Cir. 2003); Hannon v. Secy, Dept of Corr. , 562 ... F.3d 1146, 1154 (11th Cir. 2009) ("We have noted in our ... circuit ... ...