Acklin v. State
Decision Date | 15 December 2017 |
Docket Number | CR–14–1011 |
Citation | 266 So.3d 89 |
Parties | Nicholas Bernard ACKLIN v. STATE of Alabama |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Alabama Supreme Court 1170677
Patrick Mulvaney and Katherine Chamblee, Atlanta, Georgia, for appellant.
Luther Strange and Steve Marshall, attys. gen., and John A. Selden, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
Lisa W. Borden, Birmingham, for amici curiae Former Judges of Alabama Appellate Courts (Ernest Hornsby, Ralph Cook, and William Bowen ) and Former Presidents of the Alabama State Bar (Ernest Hornsby, William Clark, and Robert Segall ), in support of the appellant.
Nicholas Bernard Acklin, an inmate on death row at Holman Correctional Facility, appeals the Madison Circuit Court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P. We affirm.
On October 23, 1998, Acklin was convicted of one count of capital murder for killing Charles Lamar Hemphill, Michael A. Beaudette, Johnny Couch, and Brian Carter pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, see § 13A–5–40(a)(10), Ala. Code 1975, and two counts of attempted murder as to Ashley Rutherford and Michelle Hayden, see § 13A–6–2 and § 13A–4–2, Ala. Code 1975. The trial court sentenced Acklin to consecutive sentences of 20 years' imprisonment for his convictions for attempted murder. As to his conviction for capital murder, the jury recommended, by a vote of 10–2, that Acklin be sentenced to death; the trial court accepted that recommendation and sentenced Acklin to death.
In Acklin's direct appeal, we quoted the following relevant facts of the underlying crimes from the trial court's sentencing order:
.
" "
Acklin v. State, 790 So.2d 975, 982–84 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000) (quoting Trial C. 280–841 ).
In relevant part, the trial court found that two aggravating circumstances existed: (1) the defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons and (2) the capital offense was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel compared to other capital offenses. See § 13A–5–49, Ala. Code 1975. With regard to the second aggravating circumstance, the sentencing order states, in relevant part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lewis v. State
...action that could be detrimental to his other client.'"'"Zuck v. Alabama, 588 F.2d 436, 439 (5th Cir. 1979)."'"Acklin v. State, 266 So. 3d 89, 106-07 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017) (quoting Ervin v. State, 184 So. 3d 1073, 1080-81 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015)). In his third amended petition, Lewis allege......
-
Lewis v. State
...that could be detrimental to his other client.’" ‘ " Zuck v. Alabama, 588 F.2d 436, 439 (5th Cir. 1979)." ’ " Acklin v. State, 266 So. 3d 89, 106-07 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017) (quoting Ervin v. State, 184 So. 3d 1073, 1080–81 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015) ). In his third amended petition, Lewis allege......
-
Brooks v. State
...So. 3d 1073, 1080–81 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015). See alsoSmith v. State, 745 So. 2d 922, 938 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)." Acklin v. State, 266 So. 3d 89, 106-07 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017). Here, Brooks alleged that Floyd wanted to withdraw from Brooks's case because of "outside pressure" and "personal ......
-
Acklin v. Dunn, 5:18-cv-00885-LSC
...Michael Beaudette. Vol. 2, Tab #R-2, at C. 280-85; see also Acklin v. State, 790 So.2d 975, 982-84 (Ala.Crim.App.2000); Acklin v. State, 266 So.3d 89, 93-95 (Ala.Crim.App.2017). II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Acklin was indicted by a Madison County grand jury on January 10, 1997, on two counts of a......
-
PRESUMED PREJUDICE: WHEN SHOULD REVIEWING STATE COURTS ASSUME A DEFENDANT'S CONFLICTED COUNSEL NEGATIVELY IMPACTED THE OUTCOME OF TRIAL?
...not impeded, by the film contract"). (69.) MODEL RULES OF PRO. CONDUCT r. 1.7 cmt. 13 (AM. BAR ASS'N 2020); see also Acklin v. State. 266 So. 3d 89. 108 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017), cert, dewed, 139 S.Ct. 1374 (2019) (mem.) (applying Sullivan and finding no actual conflict when defense counsel's......