Brooks v. State
Decision Date | 10 July 2020 |
Docket Number | CR-16-1219 |
Parties | Jimmy Lee BROOKS, Jr. v. STATE of Alabama |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Christopher A. Ford, Tuskegee Institute, for appellant.
Steve Marshall, atty. gen., and John A. Selden, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
Jimmy Lee Brooks, Jr., an inmate on Alabama's death row, appeals the Talladega Circuit Court's summary dismissal in part and denial in part of his Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief.
In the evening and into the early morning hours of February 17 and 18, 2002, Jimmy Lee Brooks and Michael David Carruth posed as narcotics officers, entered Forest F. Bowyer's home, and abducted both Forest and Forest's 12-year-old son, William "Brett" Bowyer.1 Carruth and Brooks then took Forest and Brett to a remote location. While there, they took turns slitting Forest's throat with a knife. Brooks then shot Brett in the head three times. Brett fell into a shallow grave. Brooks and Carruth then threw Forest on top of Brett. Brooks and Carruth " ‘laughed and joked as they threw dirt on the dead child and his father.’ " Brooks v. State, 973 So. 2d 380, 387 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007). 2 Brooks, 973 So. 2d at 387.
Brooks was convicted of four counts of capital murder for killing Brett.3 Brooks was also convicted of attempted murder and first-degree robbery with respect to Forest and of first-degree burglary. After finding him guilty of capital murder, the jury unanimously recommended that Brooks receive the death penalty for his capital-murder convictions. The trial court followed that recommendation. Brooks, 973 So. 2d at 386. The trial court sentenced Brooks to life in prison for his other convictions. Brooks, 973 So. 2d at 386. Brooks appealed.
On March 2, 2007, this Court affirmed Brooks's convictions for capital murder committed during a kidnapping, capital murder committed during a first-degree burglary, and capital murder of a child less than 14 years old and affirmed his death sentence. Brooks, 973 So. 2d at 423. This Court also affirmed Brooks's convictions and sentences for attempted murder and first-degree robbery. Brooks, 973 So. 2d at 423. However, this Court reversed Brooks's conviction for capital murder committed during a robbery and his conviction for first-degree burglary. Brooks, 973 So. 2d at 423. The Alabama Supreme Court denied Brooks's petition for a writ of certiorari on May 18, 2007, and, on that same date, this Court issued a certificate of judgment, making Brooks's direct appeal final.4
On May 16, 2008, Brooks timely filed a Rule 32 petition. (C. 15-111.) In his petition, Brooks raised the following claims:
The State moved to dismiss Brooks's petition on July 2, 2008. (C. 128-49.)
Brooks then filed his first amended Rule 32 petition. (C. 220-348.) In his first amended petition, Brooks reiterated the claims raised in his original petition and added the following subclaims to his allegation that his trial counsel were ineffective:
Brooks also added the following substantive claims to his petition:
On May 7, 2009, the State moved to dismiss Brooks's first amended petition (C. 361-91), and, on July 10, 2009, the circuit court held a hearing on the State's motion (C. 437; R. 4-68).
On March 24, 2010, the circuit court issued an order summarily dismissing many of Brooks's claims. Specifically, the circuit court summarily dismissed claims II.A.5., II.A.7., II.A.8., and III as insufficiently pleaded (C. 437); it summarily dismissed claims II.B.5. and II.C., finding that those claims failed to state a material issue of fact or law (C. 438); and it summarily dismissed claims I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and XI as precluded under Rule 32.2(a), Ala. R. Crim. P. (C. 438-39).
On August 4, 2010, Brooks filed his second amended Rule 32 petition. (Supp. C. 25-220.) In his second amended petition, Brooks added facts to his claim that his trial counsel were ineffective for failing to challenge both the legality of his arrest and for failing to challenge the use of evidence that stemmed from his illegal arrest. (Supp. C. 47-60.) Brooks also added facts to his claim that his trial counsel were ineffective for failing to hire expert witnesses during the guilt phase of his trial--specifically, Brooks said that his trial counsel should have hired a "gun/ballistics expert, a knife wound expert, and a fingerprint expert," as well as mental-health experts. (Supp. C. 79-83.) Brooks also added the following subclaims to his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burgess v. State
...names of "experts with whom counsel consulted in the preparation of the Second Amendment Petition" did not meet the requirement, as stated in Brooks, that he "identify by name the witness his counsel should have hired, set out the testimony that the named expert would have given, and plead ......
-
Wimbley v. State
...that the named expert would have given, and plead that the named expert was both willing and available to testify at trial." Brooks, 340 So.3d at 437. although Wimbley identified certain experts by name that he had consulted with, Wimbley neither alleged what those experts would have testif......
-
Wimbley v. State
...to satisfy a Rule 32 petitioner's burden of pleading.' Mashburn v. State, 148 So.3d 1094, 1125 (Ala.Crim.App.2013)." Brooks v. State, 340 So.3d 410, 474 (Ala.Crim.App.2020). Additionally, Wimbley's claim is without merit because his allegations that his counsel moved for a pretrial mental-h......