Barksdale v. Dunn, CASE NO. 3:08-CV-327-WKW [WO]
Decision Date | 21 December 2018 |
Docket Number | CASE NO. 3:08-CV-327-WKW [WO] |
Parties | TONY BARKSDALE, AIS No. 0000z611, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
Petitioner Tony Barksdale filed this federal habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his November 1996 Tallapoosa County conviction for capital murder and sentence of death. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner is not entitled to either habeas corpus relief or a Certificate of Appealability.1
Late on the afternoon of December 1, 1995, Petitioner Tony Barksdale fatally shot 19-year-old Julie Rhodes twice - one in the face and once in the back. That fact has never been in genuine dispute. The circumstances under which Petitioner twice shot his victim, however, were actively contested and litigated fully during Petitioner's November 1996 capital murder trial.
The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion affirming Petitioner's conviction and sentence of death includes the following description of the relevant circumstances surrounding Petitioner's fatal shooting of Julie Rhodes, which quotes extensively from the trial court's Sentencing Order2:
Barksdale v. State, 788 So. 2d 898, 901-02 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000), cert. denied, 788 So. 2d 915 (Ala. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1055 (2001) (Footnotes added).
On February 9, 1996, a Tallapoosa County grand jury indicted Petitioner and David Garrison on three counts of capital murder, i.e., three different theories concerning the fatal shooting of Julie Rhodes.24
Although arrested with Petitioner and Garrison, by the time of Petitioner's capital murder trial Kevin Hilburn was deceased.25 Shortly before the start of their joint capital murder trial, Petitioner's co-defendant Garrison accepted a plea bargain, entered a guilty plea to a lesser charge of murder, and received a life sentence withthe possibility of parole.26 As part of his plea bargain, Garrison agreed to testify against Petitioner.27
Jury selection in Petitioner's capital murder trial commenced on November 11, 1996.28 The guilt-innocence phase of Petitioner's capital murder trial began November 20, 1996.29
In addition to the testimony summarized above in Section I.A., the prosecution presented and the jury heard testimony from (1) Julie's co-workers and grandmother about the events of the evening in question,30 (2) a person who saw her vehicle driving erratically just prior to the fatal shooting,31 (3) two people who werein the neighborhood where Julie was shot who heard gunfire,32 (4) the law enforcement officer who took custody of Julie's bloody clothing at the hospital in Alexander City where she was initially treated,33 (5) forensic scientists who examined the physical evidence recovered during the investigation of Julie's fatalshooting,34 including the weapon that fired the fatal shots,35 (6) law enforcement officers who examined, photographed, and recovered a spent bullet and multiplebloodstains from the area near the intersection in Alexander City where Julie's fatal shooting took place,36 and (7) a number of Petitioner's acquaintances with whom Petitioner had conversations about his gun and the fatal shooting in Alexander City,37 including the young man to whom Petitioner gave the gun Petitioner used tofatally shoot Julie Rhodes.38 Numerous witnesses in the Guntersville and Albertville areas testified they observed Petitioner, Garrison, and Hilburn in Julie Rhodes's Nissan Maxima and heard Petitioner and his companions claim ownership of the vehicle in the hours and days after her fatal shooting.39
A surgeon who treated Julie in the emergency room and operated on her at the hospital in Alexander City testified regarding her injuries and his surgical team's efforts to stabilize her prior to her transport to Birmingham.40 The forensic pathologist who conducted Julie's autopsy testified regarding the nature of her wounds and her cause of death.41
A previous owner of the pistol Petitioner used to fatally shoot Julie Rhodes testified that he bought the gun new and it jammed the first time he fired it. He had repeated problems with the mechanism that pulls the spent shell casing out of the chamber after firing. The clip that holds the retainer on the side would slide out and also cause the gun to jam, The gun's safety also moved back and forth when the gun was fired repeatedly. He traded the gun in to a dealer in 1992. He had no idea what had happened to the gun in the intervening years but, after examining it on the stand at Petitioner's trial, it was apparent that "someone has done extensive work on it." The gun now had a new grip. The gun was a single action semi-automatic that had to be cocked the first time before it would fire, i.e., if you fire it twice, you have to pull the trigger twice. He told police he had never experienced any type of accidental discharge of the weapon.42
The law enforcement officer who interviewed Petitioner on December 4, 1995 identified an audio tape recording of that interview that was played in open court for the jury as part of the prosecution's case-in-chief.43 As recorded by the court reporter, Petitioner's recorded statement included the following exchanges:
To continue reading
Request your trial