Bracewell v. State

• Decision Date: 16 December 2020
• Docket Number: CR-17-0014
• Parties: Debra Bracewell v. State of Alabama
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Debra Bracewell v. State of Alabama

CR-17-0014

Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

OCTOBER TERM, 2020-2021

December 16, 2020

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.

Appeal from Covington Circuit Court

(CC-78-26)

On Return to Remand

PER CURIAM.

On March 8, 2019, this Court remanded this cause for the trial court to clarify whether its decision to resentence Debra Bracewell, pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for her capital-murder conviction was based on its consideration of the factors set out by the Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Henderson, 144 So. 3d 1262 (Ala. 2013), that, in the wake of Miller, a sentencer must consider in sentencing a juvenile capital offender, or on its weighing of aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances under Alabama's adult capital-sentencing scheme. On remand, the trial court issued an order stating that its sentencing decision was based on its consideration of the Ex parte Henderson factors. We permitted the parties to file briefs on return to remand and, after oral argument, this cause was resubmitted to this Court on August 11, 2020. We now reverse and remand.

In Miller, the United States Supreme Court held that a sentence of "mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on 'cruel and unusual punishments.' " 567 U.S. at 465. "In striking down mandatory sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole for juveniles who commit capital murder, the Court did not hold that juveniles arecategorically exempt from such a sentence." Betton v. State, 292 So. 3d 398, 403 (Ala. Crim. App. 2018). Rather, "Miller determined that sentencing a child to life without parole is excessive for all but ' "the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption," ' ... [and] it rendered life without parole an unconstitutional penalty for ... juvenile offenders whose crimes reflect the transient immaturity of youth." Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. ___, ___, 136 S.Ct. 718, 734 (2016) (citations omitted). In Ex parte Henderson, the Alabama Supreme Court set out the following 14 factors that, if applicable,¹ must be considered in sentencing a juvenile capital offender in the wake of Miller:

"(1) the juvenile's chronological age at the time of the offense and the hallmark features of youth, such as immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences; (2) the juvenile's diminished culpability; (3) the circumstances of the offense; (4) the extent of the juvenile's participation in the crime; (5) the juvenile's family, home, and neighborhood environment; (6) the juvenile's emotional maturity and development; (7) whether familial and/or peer pressure affected the juvenile; (8) the juvenile's past exposure to violence; (9) the juvenile's drug and alcohol history; (10) thejuvenile's ability to deal with the police; (11) the juvenile's capacity to assist his or her attorney; (12) the juvenile's mental-health history; (13) the juvenile's potential for rehabilitation; and (14) any other relevant factor related to the juvenile's youth."

144 So. 3d at 1284. As noted in our opinion on original submission:

"[B]ecause of the Eighth Amendment's substantive limit on sentencing juveniles to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole -- 'Miller determined that sentencing a child to life without parole is excessive for all but " 'the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption,' " ... [and] it rendered life without parole an unconstitutional penalty for ... juvenile offenders whose crimes reflect the transient immaturity of youth,' Montgomery, 577 U.S. at ___, 136 S.Ct. at 734 (citations omitted) -- the process of determining the appropriate sentence for a juvenile capital offender is not a matter of weighing the circumstances in aggravation against the circumstances in mitigation. Rather, in determining whether to sentence a juvenile capital offender to life imprisonment or to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, the central question is whether the juvenile and his or her crimes 'reflect the transient immaturity of youth' or reflect such ' " 'irreparable corruption' " ' and 'irretrievable depravity that rehabilitation is impossible.' Montgomery, 577 U.S. at ___, 136 S.Ct. at 733-34 (citations omitted). To answer that question, Rule 26.6(b)(2)[, Ala. R. Crim. P.,] permits a sentencer to consider 'any' evidence it deems probative to the issue of sentencing and Ex parte Henderson requires a sentencer to consider 14 specific factors, if applicable."

Bracewell, ___ So. 3d at ___.

"In reviewing the circuit court's sentencing determination after a hearing conducted pursuant to Miller and Montgomery, this Court applies an abuse-of-discretion standard of review. Wilkerson [v. State], 284 So. 3d [937], 956 [(Ala. Crim. App. 2018)] ('Because life imprisonment without the possibility of parole remains a sentencing option for juvenile offenders, even in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Miller and Montgomery, the standard of review to be applied is an abuse-of-discretion standard.'). Also, the circuit court's findings as to the evidence presented at the resentencing hearing, including its consideration and application of the Henderson factors, are presumed correct and are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Smiley v. State, 52 So. 3d 565, 568 (Ala. 2010) (' " 'When the evidence in a case is in conflict, the trier of fact has to resolve the conflicts in the testimony, and it is not within the province of the appellate court to reweigh the testimony and substitute its own judgment for that of the trier of fact.' " ' (quoting Ex parte R.E.C., 899 So. 2d 272, 279 (Ala. 2004), quoting in turn Delbridge v. Civil Serv. Bd. of Tuscaloosa, 481 So. 2d 911, 913 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985)))."

Boyd v. State, [Ms. CR-18-0288, October 25, 2019] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2019). "A trial court abuses its discretion only when its decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of law or where the record contains no evidence on which it rationally could have based its decision." Williams v. State, 895 So. 2d 1012, 1016 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004).

We summarized the facts of the crime in our opinion on original submission, and a more detailed account can be found in this Court'sopinion affirming Bracewell's capital-murder conviction and sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.² See Bracewell v. State, 447 So. 2d 815, 818-20 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983), aff'd, 447 So. 2d 827 (Ala. 1984).

At the resentencing hearing, the State presented testimony from Marie Miller, who was the wife of the victim, Rex Carnley, at the time of his death, about the emotional and financial impact Carnley's murder had on her and her 3 sons, who were 18, 16, and 13 years old at the time of the murder. In addition, the State presented testimony from Nickey Carnley, Carnley's oldest son, and Kelley Carnley, Carnley's youngest son, about the impact their father's death had on them and on their brother Murray Carnley. The State introduced into evidence a transcript of the guiltphase of Bracewell's 1981 trial; a copy of Bracewell's January 23, 1978, statement to police; and a copy of the autopsy report. The State also introduced into evidence a copy of a letter Bracewell wrote in connection with a 2011 postconviction proceeding in which she claimed that Charles Bracewell was the shooter and that she was innocent, as well as a copy of a notarized letter from Charles proclaiming Bracewell's innocence; a letter Bracewell wrote to the Covington County District Attorney in 2008 claiming that the United States Supreme Court had reversed her 1978 conviction based on insufficient evidence and that she should not have been retried for capital murder in 1981, and also claiming that it was Carnley's wife, Marie, who had killed Carnley; and a copy of a 1989 letter addressed to then governor Guy Hunt and purporting to be from Marie (the letter was signed "Mrs. Carnley"), in which Marie allegedly confessed to killing her husband and stated that Bracewell was innocent -- a letter Marie Miller testified she did not write. In addition, the State introduced into evidence records from the Alabama Department of Corrections ("DOC") reflecting that Bracewell had multiple disciplinary citations in prison in the 1980s, including one in 1989 for attempting to escape, andrecords from the Elmore Circuit Court indicating that Bracewell had pleaded guilty to first-degree escape in 1990.³ Finally, the State introduced into evidence a "Psychological Interview/Data Entry Form" from the DOC indicating that, in 1986, Bracewell had a full-scale IQ score of 74 and suffered from no significant emotional problems or substance-abuse problems. (C. 1284.)⁴

Bracewell presented documentary and testimonial evidence about her childhood and adolescent years and about her life in prison over the last 40 years. Bracewell grew up in poverty and suffered both physical and sexual abuse at the hands of her father, Owen Fillman ("Owen"),throughout her childhood and adolescent years. As the trial court noted in its sentencing order: "By all accounts, [Bracewell] grew up in the worst situation imaginable." (C. 218.) Bracewell's older brother Jimmy Fillman, older sister Peggy Jones, and paternal cousin Nancy Daniel testified about the abuse. Their testimony indicated that Owen rarely worked and that the family was "dirt poor," many times having little or no food to eat. (R. 92.) Owen abused...