Bui v. State
Decision Date | 26 September 1997 |
Docket Number | CR-95-0855 |
Citation | 717 So.2d 6 |
Parties | Quang Ngoc BUI v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Kathryn V. Stanley and Bryan A. Stevenson, Montgomery, for appellant.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Michael Billingsley, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Quang Ngoc Bui, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P. On June 12, 1986, the appellant was convicted of the murder of his three children, an offense made capital by § 13A-5-40(a)(10), Ala.Code 1975. 1 In accordance with §§ 13A-5-45 and -46, Ala.Code 1975, a sentencing hearing was held before the jury, after which the jury, by a vote of 10-2, returned an advisory verdict recommending that the appellant be sentenced to death. The trial court, after weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and considering the jury's recommendation, sentenced the appellant to death by electrocution.
This court and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the appellant's conviction and death sentence. Bui v. State, 551 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 551 So.2d 1125 (Ala.1989). On April 22, 1991, the United States Supreme Court vacated the Alabama Supreme Court's affirmance and remanded the case for consideration in light of Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991), which holds that a defendant, regardless of race, has standing to raise a Batson 2 challenge to the state's exercise of peremptory strikes against black prospective jurors. See Bui v. Alabama, 499 U.S. 971, 111 S.Ct. 1613, 113 L.Ed.2d 712 (1991). Thereafter, pursuant to a directive from the Alabama Supreme Court, see Ex parte Bui, 627 So.2d 848 (Ala.1991), this court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions that that court conduct a hearing on the state's use of its peremptory strikes. Bui v. State, 627 So.2d 849 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the state's use of peremptory strikes against black prospective jurors was not based on race. On return to remand, this court disagreed and reversed the appellant's conviction and sentence, holding that the state had engaged in intentional discrimination in its use of peremptory strikes. Bui v. State, 627 So.2d 849 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). The Alabama Supreme Court, however, reversed this court's judgment and affirmed the appellant's conviction and sentence in Bui v. State, 627 So.2d 855 (Ala.1992). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari review in Bui v. State, 508 U.S. 975, 113 S.Ct. 2970, 125 L.Ed.2d 669 (1993). All issues cognizable on direct appeal have been scrutinized, including those cognizable under the "plain error" doctrine.
The appellant filed his Rule 32 petition on November 9, 1994. The trial court held a lengthy evidentiary hearing on the allegations in the appellant's petition on October 27, 1995, and, in a thorough 24-page order, denied all relief on January 3, 1996. Judge Charles Price, the circuit judge who presided over the appellant's trial, also presided over the evidentiary hearings on the Rule 32 petition.
The essential facts of this case were recited by this court in Bui v. State, 551 So.2d at 1098-99, and are as follows:
In his petition, the appellant presents numerous claims regarding the performance of his counsel, most alleging acts and omissions of counsel at trial. He contends that as a result of counsel's alleged errors, he was denied the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must meet the two-pronged test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984):
466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064.
"The performance component outlined in Strickland is an objective one: that is, whether counsel's assistance, judged under 'prevailing professional norms,' was 'reasonable considering all the circumstances.' " Daniels v. State, 650 So.2d 544, 552 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), cert. denied,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
George v. State
...615 So.2d 129, 132 (Ala. Cr. App. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 976, 114 S.Ct. 467, 126 L.Ed.2d 418 (1993)." ‘....’" Bui v. State, 717 So.2d 6, 12-13 (Ala. Cr. App. 1997), cert. denied, 717 So.2d 6 (Ala. [Crim. App.] 1998)." Dobyne v. State, 805 So.2d 733, 742-44 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000), aff......
-
Brown v. State
...v. State, 645 So.2d 326 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994).'" Callahan v. State, 767 So.2d 380, 384 (Ala. Cr.App.1999), quoting Bui v. State, 717 So.2d 6, 12-13 (Ala.Cr.App.1997). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a death-penalty case, a challenging party must show that the defe......
-
Callahan v. State
...84 (1995); Wilson v. State, 644 So.2d 1326 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Elliott v. State, 601 So.2d 1118 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992)." Bui v. State, 717 So.2d 6, 12-13 (Ala.Cr. App.1997). Moreover, "`[a] finding of no plain error is one factor to consider when assessing the performance of ... counsel.'" Forte......
-
Boyd v. State
...Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 929, 113 S.Ct. 1306, 122 L.Ed.2d 695 (1993), quoted in Daniels, 650 So.2d at 568." Bui v. State, 717 So.2d 6, 22 (Ala.Cr.App. 1997). The trial court in this case chose to override the jury's recommendation because the aggravating circumstances greatly outwe......