Burgess v. State
| Docket Number | CR-19-1040 |
| Decision Date | 23 June 2023 |
| Parties | Willie R. Burgess, Jr. v. State of Alabama |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Morgan Circuit Court (CC-93-421.60)
This appeal asks whether the Morgan Circuit Court erred in summarily dismissing a petition for relief under Rule 32 Ala. R. Crim. P., in which Willie R. Burgess, Jr., challenged his 1994 conviction for murder, made capital because Burgess committed it during a first-degree robbery, and his resulting death sentence. We hold that the circuit court did not, and we affirm.
On appeal, Burgess argues (1) that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for leave to amend his petition; (2) that he sufficiently pleaded the claims in his petition and that he did not have to plead the names of the experts he contends his counsel should have used to assist in his defense; (3) that, for many reasons, his trial counsel and appellate counsel were constitutionally ineffective; (4) that one of his trial attorneys had an actual conflict of interest; (5) that Alabama's compensation scheme for appointed attorneys in a capital case is unconstitutional; (6) that his conviction violates international law; (7) that juror misconduct occurred in his case; (8) that the State withheld exculpatory evidence; (9) that the prosecutor presented false testimony; (10) that his death sentence is unconstitutional (11) that Alabama's death-penalty statute is unconstitutional; (12) that the circuit court should have disqualified the Attorney General and all attorneys in the District Attorney's Office for the Eighth Judicial Circuit; (13) that the circuit court erred in denying his requests for discovery; and (14) that "the cumulative effect of the errors" in his case deprived him of a fair trial.
On direct appeal in 1998, this Court summarized the relevant facts from Burgess's trial:
Burgess v. State, 827 So.2d 134, 145-46 (Ala.Crim.App.1998). The jury convicted Burgess of capital murder for killing Crow. See § 13A-5-40(a)(2), Ala. Code 1975 ().
At the penalty phase of the trial, the defense presented testimony from four witnesses: Burgess's mother, Maggie Burgess; Burgess's third-grade teacher, Maxine Ellison; Burgess's father, Willie Burgess, Sr.; and Burgess's former girlfriend, Danielle Douglas. At the end of the penalty phase, the jury recommended, by an 11-1 vote, a death sentence. The trial court followed the jury's recommendation and sentenced Burgess to death. The trial court found that one aggravating circumstance existed: that Burgess had committed the murder during a robbery, § 13A-5-49(4), Ala. Code 1975. (Trial C. 45.)[1] The trial court found that two statutory mitigating circumstances existed: that Burgess did not have a significant criminal history, § 13A-5-51(1), Ala. Code 1975, and that Burgess was 18 years old when he committed the crime, § 13A-5-51(7), Ala. Code 1975. (Trial C. 46-47.) The trial court found that three nonstatutory mitigating circumstances existed: that evidence about Burgess's character was "only slightly mitigating"; that evidence about Burgess's family history showed that he had dropped out of school in the ninth grade, that his "home life was not ideal, in that he lacked the presence of a father figure," and that his "home life could best be characterized as one of neglect, at least as his father was concerned"; and that Burgess "was diagnosed as having an antisocial personality disorder by the court's appointed psychiatrist." (Trial C. 47-48.)
This Court affirmed Burgess's conviction and sentence. Burgess, 827 So.2d 134. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed this Court's judgment. Ex parte Burgess, 827 So.2d 193 (Ala. 2000), cert. denied, Burgess v. Alabama, 537 U.S. 976 (2002). This Court issued a certificate of judgment on February 26, 2002, making Burgess's conviction and sentence final.
In July 2003, Burgess timely filed a postconviction petition under Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., challenging his conviction and sentence.[2] (C. 9.) After the State filed responsive pleadings, the circuit court granted Burgess leave to amend his petition, and Burgess added short amendments to the more than 300-page petition in October 2004 and December 2006. (C. 410, 421, 550, 596, 613, 690.) The amendments expanded on claims that Burgess had raised in his first petition. In May 2007, the circuit court ordered that it would allow no more amendments. (C. 699.)
In August 2008, Burgess moved for leave to file an amended petition. (C. 720.) The circuit court did not rule on this motion and took no action in the case for more than eight years.
In September 2016, the State moved the circuit court for a scheduling order. (C. 730.) In its motion, the State conceded that Burgess should have a chance to amend his petition,[3] and it noted that the parties had agreed that Burgess should have 60 days to file an amended petition. The circuit court set aside the prohibition on amendments in its May 2007 order, and in November 2016 Burgess filed a second amended Rule 32 petition.[4] (C. 736.)
In his petition, Burgess asserted these claims: (1) that his trial counsel were ineffective in their investigation of the crime (C. 745-94); (2) that his trial counsel were ineffective in their investigation, preparation, and presentation at the penalty phase of the trial (C. 794-873); (3) that his trial counsel were ineffective in their pretrial preparation and litigation (C. 873-945); (4) that his trial counsel were ineffective at the guilt phase of the trial (C. 946-63); (5) that his trial counsel were ineffective at the penalty phase of the trial (C. 964-73); (6) that his trial counsel were ineffective at the sentencing hearing (C. 973-83); (7) that one of his trial counsel, Gregory Biggs, had an actual conflict of interest, which, Burgess said, violated his right to counsel and his right to a fair trial (C. 983-85); (8) that "Alabama's statute for appointment and compensation and the trial court's related rulings violated Mr. Burgess's right to effective counsel and his right to a fair trial" (C. 985-89); (9) that trial counsel were ineffective for not objecting to Burgess's conviction and sentence on the basis of "international law" (C. 990-95); (10) that his appellate counsel were ineffective (C. 996-1007); (11) that "jurors were exposed to and considered extrinsic evidence in violation of their duty to reach guilt and penalty phase verdicts based solely on the evidence presented at trial" (C. 1007-11); (12) that "the State both withheld and belatedly disclosed exculpatory evidence in violation of Mr. Burgess's right to a fair trial and a reliable determination of guilt and sentence" (C. 1011-13); (13) that "the State presented false and misleading testimony that deprived Mr. Burgess of a fair trial and a reliable determination of guilt and penalty" (C. 1013-15); (14) that imposing the death penalty on Burgess is unconstitutional because Burgess was 18 years old at the time of the crime (C. 1015-26); (15) that Alabama's death-penalty scheme is unconstitutional (C. 1026-33); (16) that "Mr. Burgess was convicted and sentenced in violation of international law, applicable in the United States" (C. 1033-34); and (17) that "the cumulative effect of the errors deprived Mr. Burgess of a fundamentally fair trial" and his constitutional rights (C. 1034).
In June 2017, the State answered the second amended petition and moved the circuit court to summarily dismiss it. (C. 1060-1162.) Burgess replied to the State's answer, and the State responded to Burgess's reply. (C. 1164-1288.)
In September 2017, the circuit court held a status hearing. After the hearing, the circuit court entered an order stating it would allow no more amendments. (C. 1292.) The circuit court denied Burgess's October 2017 motion for reconsideration and motion for leave to amend the second amended petition. (C. 1294, 1344.)
In July 2020, the circuit court entered a detailed order summarily dismissing Burgess's petition. (C. 1349-1525.) After the circuit court did not rule on Burgess's motion for reconsideration, Burgess timely appealed.[5] (C. 1526, 1585.)
To continue reading
Request your trial