Benjamin v. State
Decision Date | 20 December 2013 |
Docket Number | CR–10–1832. |
Citation | 156 So.3d 424 |
Parties | Brandyn Josephe BENJAMIN v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Robert L. Schnell, Leif T. Simonson (withdrew 11/05/13), and Eileen M. Hunter, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and John Steensland III, Dothan, for appellant.
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and Thomas R. Govan, Jr., asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
Brandyn Josephe Benjamin, currently an inmate at Holman Correctional Facility on Alabama's death row, appeals the circuit court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P.
In 2004, Benjamin was convicted of murdering Jimmie Lewis during the course of a first-degree robbery, a murder defined as capital by § 13A–5–40(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975. The jury recommended, by a vote of 10 to 2, that Benjamin be sentenced to death. The circuit court followed the jury's recommendation and sentenced Benjamin to death. After remanding Benjamin's case for the circuit court to correct its sentencing order, we affirmed Benjamin's conviction and his sentence of death on direct appeal. See Benjamin v. State, 940 So.2d 371 (Ala.Crim.App.2005), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 997, 127 S.Ct. 494, 166 L.Ed.2d 372 (2006). This Court issued the certificate of judgment making Benjamin's direct appeal final on April 21, 2006.
On April 17, 2007, Benjamin filed a timely Rule 32 petition in the Houston Circuit Court attacking his conviction and death sentence. He filed an amended postconviction petition in March 2008. In August 2008, the circuit court partially dismissed some of Benjamin's claims. An evidentiary hearing was held on the remaining claims, and in July 2011 the circuit court issued a 33–page order denying Benjamin's postconviction petition.1 Benjamin then filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court.
In its order sentencing Benjamin to death, the circuit court set out the following facts surrounding Lewis's murder and Benjamin's conviction:
Rule 32.3, Ala. R.Crim. P., provides, in pertinent part: “The petitioner shall have the burden of pleading and proving by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to entitle the petitioner to relief.” “ ‘When reviewing a circuit court's rulings made in a postconviction petition, we may affirm a ruling if it is correct for any reason.’ ” Lee v. State, 44 So.3d 1145, 1149 (Ala.Crim.App.2009), quoting Bush v. State, 92 So.3d 121, 134 (Ala.Crim.App.2009).
The majority of the claims raised by Benjamin involve allegations that his trial attorneys were ineffective. In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show: (1) that counsel's performance was deficient; and (2) that he was prejudiced by the deficient performance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 (citations omitted). As the United States Supreme Court further stated:
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690–91.
“The Sixth Amendment right to counsel guarantees a fair trial, not a perfect one.” Willis v. United States, 87 F.3d 1004, 1008 (8th Cir.1996). “The Sixth Amendment guarantees reasonable competence, not perfect advocacy judged with the benefit of hindsight.” Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1, 8, 124 S.Ct. 1, 157 L.Ed.2d 1 (2003). “Effective counsel does not mean errorless counsel.” Birt v. Montgomery, 709 F.2d 690, 705 (11th Cir.1983).
At trial, Benjamin was represented by attorneys Michael Crespi and Kalia Lane. Both testified at the postconviction evidentiary hearing.
Benjamin first argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to effectively argue a Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), motion. In Batson, the United States Supreme Court held that it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause to strike a black prospective juror from a black defendant's jury based solely on the juror's race. This holding was extended to white defendants in Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991), to defense counsel in criminal cases in Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 112 S.Ct. 2348, 120 L.Ed.2d 33 (1992), and to gender-based strikes in J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994).
The record of Benjamin's trial shows that both the State and Benjamin were allowed 15 peremptory strikes. The strike list indicated that the State struck 9 white jurors and 6 black jurors. Benjamin used all of his 15 strikes to remove white prospective jurors. After the jury was struck, Benjamin's counsel made a Batson objection and argued that 7 black prospective jurors remained on the venire after the strikes for cause and the State used 6 of its 15 strikes to remove black prospective jurors. (Trial R. 123.) The court then asked the prosecutor to state its reasons for striking the six black jurors. (Trial R. 125.) In the postconviction proceeding, Benjamin challenges the removal of only three of those black prospective jurors.
Initially, Benjamin argues that he was not required to plead or prove any prejudice because, he says, prejudice is presumed in a Batson context. The Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Yelder, 575 So.2d 137 (Ala.1991), first held that under the Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), test an attorney's failure to make a Batson objection when the record clearly established a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination is subject to the “presumed prejudice” standard. The Court reaffirmed this holding in Ex parte Frazier, 758 So.2d 611, 616 (Ala.1999). However, neither the Yelder Court nor the Frazier Court addressed whether the presumed-prejudice standard applies when an attorney does make a Batson objection, as the attorney did in this case, or whether that standard applies when a defendant raises the issue as an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in a postconviction proceeding. Both Yelder and Frazier were cases on direct appeal, cases where the standard of review and burden of proof are different than appeals from the denial of a Rule 32 petition.
Other courts have declined to extend the presumed-prejudice standard to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in regard to a Batson claim.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Petersen v. State
... ... , just hours after his first interrogation on August 10, 2012, Petersen was charged with three counts of capital murder and one count of attempted murder and was then apprised of his rights, including his right to have counsel appointed, at his initial appearance before District Court Judge Benjamin Lewis. (C. 62, 66.) During his initial appearance, Petersen did not request court-appointed counsel. (C. 74-77.) After a hearing on August 15, 2012--one day after his second statement to police on August 14, 2012--counsel was appointed for Petersen. (C. 78.) Under these circumstances and based on ... ...
-
Lewis v. State
... ... 142.) Lewis argues that the testimony from Miller, Bailey, and Crawford would have been admissible if Free had testified and had been asked about making the hearsay statements. But Page 109 Free's testimony about hearsay statements would also be inadmissible hearsay. 27 See, e.g. , Benjamin v. State , 156 So. 3d 424, 457 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013) ("'The Alabama Rules of Evidence apply to Rule 32 proceedings. Rule 804, Ala. R. Evid., specifically excludes hearsay evidence.'" (quoting Hunt v. State , 940 So. 2d 1041, 1051 (Ala. Crim. App.2005)). The circuit court did not abuse its ... ...
-
Lewis v. State
... ... 142.) Lewis argues that the testimony from Miller, Bailey, and Crawford would have been admissible if Free had testified and had been asked about making the hearsay statements. But Free's testimony about hearsay statements would also be inadmissible hearsay. 27 See, e.g. , Benjamin v. State , 156 So. 3d 424, 457 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013) (" The Alabama Rules of Evidence apply to Rule 32 proceedings. Rule 804, Ala. R. Evid., specifically excludes hearsay evidence. " (quoting Hunt v. State , 940 So. 2d 1041, 1051 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005) ). The circuit court did not abuse its ... ...
-
George v. State
... ... , 652 So.2d 248, 251 (Ala. 1994). Because Jennings has failed to present sufficient argument, authority, or citation to the facts in support of this issue, we conclude that the he has failed to comply with Rule 28(a)(10) and that this issue is therefore, deemed to be waived. " Benjamin v. State , 156 So.3d 424, 453-54 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013) (quoting Jennings v. State , 965 So.2d 1112, 1136 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) ). 3. George next contends that "[t]he cumulative effect of all the Rule 32 court's errors, both legal and factual, renders its decision denying relief unreasonable." ... ...