Eggers v. State
Decision Date | 05 December 2017 |
Docket Number | Nos. 16-10785,16-16805,s. 16-10785 |
Parties | Michael Wayne EGGERS, Petitioner–Appellant, v. State of ALABAMA, Respondent–Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Christine A. Freeman, John Anthony Palombi, Leslie S. Smith, Federal Defender Program, Inc., MONTGOMERY, AL, for Petitioner–Appellant.
Michael Wayne Eggers, Donaldson CF–Inmate Legal Mail, BESSEMER, AL, Pro Se.
Richard Dearman Anderson, Alabama Attorney General's Office, for Respondent–Appellee (Case No. 16-10785).
Richard Dearman Anderson, Thomas R. Govan, Jr., Alabama Attorney General's Office, for Respondent–Appellee (Case No. 16-16805).
Before HULL, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
At issue in this capital case is whether Michael Wayne Eggers, an Alabama death row inmate, is competent to waive his right to appeal from the denial of his § 2254 federal habeas petition, to discharge counsel and proceed with execution. Eggers admitted to having beaten and choked to death Bennie Francis Murray, his former employer, because she slapped him during an argument and because he felt betrayed by her refusal to help him fetch his disabled car from a remote location. On August 5, 2013, Eggers filed a pro se federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, challenging the validity of his convictions and sentence. Counsel was appointed to represent him. Throughout the § 2254 proceedings, Eggers disagreed with his counsel's litigation strategy, sought to have different counsel appointed, and asserted claims for habeas relief in his own voluminous pro se filings.
After his counsel filed a notice of appeal from the district court's denial of his § 2254 petition, Eggers filed recurrent pro se requests to withdraw the appeal, discharge counsel and be executed. At counsel's request, the district court conducted a mental health hearing on Eggers's competency to waive his appeals, and this Court stayed the appeal in order to allow the district court to complete its inquiry. After taking extensive testimony from two psychologists and Eggers himself, in addition to examining voluminous documentary evidence bearing on Eggers's competency, the district court concluded that Eggers was mentally competent and had made a rational choice to forego further collateral review, dismiss his attorneys, and proceed to execution. Thus, it granted Eggers's application to withdraw his appeal from the denial of his § 2254 petition and discharge counsel.
A second notice of appeal was then filed by his counsel challenging the district court's competency ruling too. In light of the petitioner's expressed choice to dismiss all appeals, discharge counsel and proceed with execution, we are obliged to address the ancillary issue of Eggers's competency before turning to the merits of this habeas appeal. To that end, we have obtained briefing from the State, Eggers himself and his counsel to resolve this threshold matter. After review of a lengthy record, we are satisfied that the district court engaged in a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the record and acted within its discretion in finding that the petitioner was competent to proceed as he saw fit and rationally chose to abandon his federal habeas appeal. We can discern no clear error in this determination and, thus, affirm the judgment of the district court and dismiss this appeal.
In order to properly address the matter of competency, we briefly recount the essential factual and procedural history surrounding this case. The underlying facts were summarized by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals this way:
Eggers v. State, 914 So.2d 883, 888-89 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004) (citations omitted).
Trial began in August 2002. Id. at 890. During trial, Eggers's counsel had him evaluated by a psychologist in an effort to establish that he was not guilty by reason of insanity. Id. at 890, 912-13. Although Eggers pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, and although the jury was charged on the defense of insanity, Eggers did not argue, nor present evidence denying that he killed Francis or that he was insane at the time of the crime. Id. at 890. Rather, the petitioner claimed that he suffered from intermittent explosive disorder
and personality disorder, that the initial attack on Francis was the result of blind rage precipitated because Francis slapped him and that the ensuing kidnapping and robbery were merely afterthoughts unrelated to the homicide. Id.
The insanity defense failed and the jury convicted Eggers of two counts of capital murder. Id. at 888. The homicide was made capital because it was committed during the course of a kidnaping, see Ala. Code § 13A-5-40(a)(1) (1975), and because it was committed during the course of a robbery, see id. § 13A-5-40(a)(2). Eggers, 914 So.2d at 919-20. The jury recommended that the petitioner be sentenced to death by a vote of eleven to one. Id. at 920. The trial court accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced Eggers to death. Id. at 921.
Eggers appealed, through new appointed counsel; the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. Eggers v. State, CR-02-0170, 2004 WL 2200853 (Ala. Crim. App. Oct. 1, 2004). After Eggers filed an application for rehearing, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals substituted its opinion with another on November 24, 2004, also affirming the conviction and sentence, and overruled a second application for rehearing. Eggers, 914 So.2d at 883. The Alabama Supreme Court initially granted Eggers's petition for a writ of certiorari, but later quashed the petition. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals issued its certificate of judgment on May 20, 2005. Eggers subsequently petitioned the United States Supreme Court twice for certiorari review—a pro se petition and an attorney-authored one. Both applications were denied on January 17, 2006. Eggers v. Alabama, 546 U.S. 1140, 126 S.Ct. 1143, 163 L.Ed.2d 1004 (2006).
On April 20, 2006, Eggers timely filed a pro se post-conviction petition pursuant to Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure in the Circuit Court of Walker County, Alabama. At the State's request, the court held a hearing to determine whether to appoint counsel to represent Eggers. Right from the outset, Eggers said that he wanted to proceed...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Mantiply v. Horne (In re Horne)
-
Regions Bank v. Kaplan
... ... Association, accusing him of check kiting ... Regions ... also sued Kaplan in Florida state court to recover the ... overdraft fees resulting from the dishonored first deal ... checks. Regions asserted claims for conversion, ... fraudulent. "[W]e are obliged to accept" the ... district court's findings of fact unless they are clearly ... erroneous. Eggers v. Alabama , 876 F.3d 1086, 1094 ... (11th Cir. 2017). And, after reviewing the entire record, we ... conclude that the district court's ... ...
-
Nakava LLC v. The S. Pac. Elixir Co.
... ... definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been ... committed." Eggers v. Alabama, 876 F.3d 1086, ... 1094 (11th Cir. 2017) (quotations omitted). We review the ... denial of both Rule 59 and Rule 60(b) ... ...
-
United States v. Greene
...to stand trial or plead guilty); United States v. Rodriguez, 751 F.3d 1244, 1252 (11th Cir. 2014); see also Eggers v. Alabama, 876 F.3d 1086, 1094 (11th Cir. 2017) (applying test for competence to waive further postconviction review involves determining whether the defendant "suffers from a......
-
Review Proceedings
...dismissal of petition may be granted where petitioner found competent and waiver voluntary, knowing, and intelligent); Eggers v. Ala., 876 F.3d 1086, 1105-06 (11th Cir. 2017) (voluntary dismissal of petition may be granted where petitioner found competent and made rational decision to foreg......