Clark v. State
Citation | 196 So.3d 285 |
Decision Date | 13 March 2015 |
Docket Number | CR–12–1965. |
Parties | Charles Gregory CLARK v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Alabama Supreme Court 1140975.
Richard Stephen Jaffe, Birmingham; and Stephen Andrew Strickland, Birmingham, for appellant.
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and James R. Houts, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
KELLUM
, Judge.
Charles Gregory Clark appeals the circuit court's denial, after a hearing, of his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., in which he attacked his 1999 conviction for capital murder and his resulting sentence of death.
In 1999, Clark was convicted of murder made capital because it was committed during the course of a robbery, see § 13A–5–40(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975
. The jury recommended by a vote of 11–1 that Clark be sentenced to death. The trial court followed the jury's recommendation and sentenced Clark to death for his capital-murder conviction. On appeal, this Court initially remanded the case for the trial court to correct deficiencies in its sentencing order. Clark v. State, 896 So.2d 584 (Ala.Crim.App.2000)
. On return to remand, this Court affirmed Clark's conviction and sentence of death. Clark v. State, 896 So.2d 584 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) ( ). The Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari review, and this Court issued a certificate of judgment on October 1, 2004. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari review on June 20, 2005. Clark v. Alabama, 545 U.S. 1130, 125 S.Ct. 2930, 162 L.Ed.2d 870 (2005).
Clark, through counsel, timely filed his Rule 32 petition on September 12, 2005, raising numerous claims, including claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. On December 27, 2005, the State filed an answer to Clark's petition, arguing that all of Clark's claims were insufficiently pleaded, meritless, and/or precluded. On January 13, 2006, Clark filed a reply to the State's answer and a motion to amend, in which he raised additional claims. The circuit court granted Clark's motion to amend. On February 16, 2006, the State filed an answer to the motion to amend, arguing that the claims in the motion to amend were insufficiently pleaded and/or precluded. On March 1, 2006, Clark filed an “Outline of His Rule 32 Petitions,” in which he expressly abandoned some of the claims raised in his petition and motion to amend and provided a brief synopsis of the claims he wished to pursue. (C. 449.) On June 12, 2006, the circuit court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Clark's petition. On or about April 1, 2013, Clark filed what he styled as his “Closing Argument.” (C. 468.) On July 23, 2013, the circuit court issued an order denying Clark's petition.1 This appeal followed.
On direct appeal, this Court set out the facts of the crime as follows:
, 17 superficial cuts, and several scrapes on his body, including on his back, his chest, his face, his arms, and his hands. Dr. Riddick stated that the wounds were most likely caused by a knife and that, because of the presence and amount of blood in each wound, in Dr. Riddick's opinion, Ewing was alive when each wound had been inflicted; however, Dr. Riddick said that he could not determine the order in which the wounds had been inflicted. According to Dr. Riddick, the two stab wounds in the back were relatively deep wounds —they, in fact, struck bone—and ‘would take some degree of force.’ (R. 800.) In addition, Dr. Riddick stated that one of the stab wounds to the chest punctured Ewing's heart. Dr. Riddick testified that the wound to the heart would have been fatal within a few minutes. Dr. Riddick also stated that there were a few wounds on Ewing's hands and arms which he described as defensive wounds ; however, Dr. Riddick stated that the lack of a significant number of defensive wounds on Ewing's hands and arms indicated that Ewing and the perpetrator were in very close proximity—i.e., closer than two feet—struggling at the time of the stabbing.
“William Bentley Cowan, a corporal with the Gulf Shores Police Department, testified that on the morning of February 14, 1998, he was informed by the police-department dispatcher about a possible assault or homicide at a gas station on Fort Morgan Road. Cpl. Cowan then drove to Fort Morgan Road in an attempt to find the gas station. He stopped at the first gas station he saw—Mo's Landing, which is approximately 8 to 10 miles away from Ewing's store. At Mo's Landing, Cpl. Cowan was informed that a silver Toyota Celica automobile that had just driven past Mo's Landing was involved in the incident at Ewing's store. Cpl. Cowan reported the automobile and then drove east on Fort Morgan Road in an attempt to find it. Cpl. Cowan testified that, as he was looking for the car, he heard over the radio that another officer with the Gulf Shores Police Department, Justin Clopton, had...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lewis v. State
...of Causey or Harger, Lewis also claims Parkman was ineffective for notcalling Causey and Harger as witnesses. In Clark v. State, 196 So. 3d 285, 306 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015), this Court stated:"'Trial counsel's decisions regarding what theory of the case to pursue represent the epitome of tri......
-
Brooks v. State
...53, 92-93 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013) (emphasis added). "'Closing argument is an area where trial strategy is most evident,'" Clark v. State, 196 So. 3d 285, 315 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015) (quoting Flemming v. State, 949 S.W.2d 876, 881 (Tex. Ct. App. 1997), and "'[m]atters of trial tactics and tria......
-
Lewis v. State
...of Causey or Harger, Lewis also claims Parkman was ineffective for not calling Causey and Harger as witnesses. In Clark v. State, 196 So. 3d 285, 306 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015), this Court stated:" ‘Trial counsel's decisions regarding what theory of the case to pursue represent the epitome of t......
-
George v. State
...claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, this Court need not consider both prongs of the Strickland test." Clark v. State, 196 So.3d 285, 303 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015). "Because both prongs of the Strickland test must be satisfied to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, the failure......