Coral v. State

• Citation: 900 So.2d 1274
• Parties: Robert Lance CORAL v. STATE of Alabama.
• Decision Date: 28 May 2004
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

900 So.2d 1274

Robert Lance CORAL v. STATE of Alabama.

CR-01-0341.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 28, 2004.

Rehearing Denied August 13, 2004.

Certiorari Denied November 19, 2004.

Lajuana Sharonne Davis, Montgomery, for appellant.

William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen., and Anne C. Adams, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.

Alabama Supreme Court 1031798.

WISE, Judge.

Robert Lance Coral, currently an inmate on death row at Holman Correctional Facility, appeals the circuit court's dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim.P.

In September 1989, Coral was convicted of capital murder and murder for killing Nancy Burt during the course of a burglary. The jury recommended, by a vote of 8 to 4, that Coral be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The trial court overrode the jury's recommendation and sentenced Coral to death. On appeal, we remanded the case for the trial court to enter specific written findings concerning the existence of any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. See Coral v. State, 585 So.2d 248 (Ala.Crim. App.1991). On return, we again remanded the case for the trial court to correct its sentencing order and to set aside Coral's conviction for murder because it was encompassed in the capital-murder conviction. See Coral v. State, 628 So.2d 954 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). On return to second remand, Coral's capital-murder conviction and sentence to death were affirmed. See Coral v. State, 628 So.2d 988 (Ala.Crim. App.1992), aff'd, 628 So.2d 1004 (Ala.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1012, 114 S.Ct. 1387, 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994). This Court issued the certificate of judgment on September 14, 1993.

On September 1, 1995, Coral filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P.¹ Within 30 days the State moved for a partial dismissal of claims it alleged failed to comply with the specificity requirements of Rule 32.6(b), Ala.R.Crim.P. On April 3, 1996, the circuit court held a hearing on the State's motion. That same day the circuit court entered an order allowing Coral 60 days to amend his petition.² On June 4, 1996, Coral filed an amended petition. The State filed its answer and again moved for a partial dismissal. A hearing on the State's motion was held on July 1, 1996. During the hearing, the circuit court dismissed the majority of Coral's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. (Supplemental record, p. 18.) It allowed two ineffective-assistance claims to proceed. The circuit court gave both parties 10 days to address those remaining two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The State responded and filed a proposed order denying relief. Coral did not respond to the circuit court's order. However, on September 4, 1996, Coral filed a second amended petition. From September 1996 until August 2001 no motions were filed by either party.³ On August 30, 2001, the State moved that the circuit court deny postconviction relief. By order dated September 28, 2001, the circuit court denied the postconviction petition. This appeal followed.

This is an appeal from the denial of a collateral petition attacking Coral's death sentence. When reviewing Coral's direct appeal we applied a plain-error standard of review. See Rule 45A, Ala. R.App.P. We do not apply a plain-error standard when reviewing the denial of a Rule 32 petition in a death case. Hill v. State, 695 So.2d 1223 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). We apply an abuse-of-discretion standard when evaluating the circuit court proceedings. Reed v. State, 748 So.2d 231 (Ala. Crim.App.1999). "If the circuit court is correct for any reason, even though it may not be the stated reason, we will not reverse its denial of the petition. See Roberts v. State, 516 So.2d 936 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987)

." Reed, 748 So.2d at 233. The procedural default grounds contained in Rule 32 apply to all cases — even those in which the death penalty has been imposed. Hooks v. State, 822 So.2d 476 (Ala.Crim. App.2000).

The State's evidence at Coral's trial tended to show that on September 19, 1987, Tracey Headley discovered the body of his girlfriend, Nancy Burt, in their apartment in Montgomery. She had been shot in the head. An autopsy revealed that Burt had been beaten before she was shot. The coroner testified that Burt died from the gunshot wound to her head and that based on the contents of her stomach she died at approximately 9:00 p.m.

Abbie Somers, Coral's common-law wife, testified that on the morning of September 18, 1987, Coral was released from the Montgomery County jail and he telephoned her to pick him up. She said that she took Coral to get his TransAm automobile that was in the police impound garage. Somers further testified that Coral asked her for money so that he could return to Illinois. Somers gave him some money. The next morning, Somers said, she called to see if Coral had arrived in Illinois. Coral told her that he had arrived in Illinois at approximately 6:00 a.m. that morning. Evidence was introduced that the drive from Montgomery to Galatia, Illinois, takes approximately eight hours.

A resident of the apartment complex where Burt was killed testified that he saw Coral at the complex on the night of the robbery/murder. Coral also told a friend that he had committed the murder. He said that the victim had come home unexpectedly and that he had to "shoot the bitch because she had too much on him." There was also testimony indicating that Coral told his fellow inmates in the Montgomery County jail before he was released the day before the murder that he needed money and that he was thinking of robbing a convenience store.

Coral raises the following claims concerning the denial of his postconviction petition.

I.

Coral argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims without first allowing him the opportunity to prove his claims. He contends that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing so that he can develop these claims.

Coral's first Rule 32 petition contained the following claims related to ineffective assistance of counsel:

"Trial counsel's ineffectiveness includes, but is not limited to the following:

"(a) Trial counsel did not properly prepare or investigate in order to present an appropriate defense and a proper case against the imposition of the death penalty;

"(b) Trial counsel failed to adequately develop and present a defense strategy;

"(c) Trial counsel failed to adequately cross-examine prosecution witnesses;

"(d) Trial counsel failed to prepare and present evidence in support of motions filed;

"(e) Trial counsel failed to adequately challenge the systematic underrepresentation of African Americans on the grand jury venire;

"(f) Trial counsel failed to adequately voir dire and strike for cause jurors at the guilt phase of Mr. Coral's trial;

"(g) Trial counsel failed to call mental health expert witnesses and other expert witnesses at the guilt phase of Mr. Coral's trial;

"(h) Trial counsel failed to develop an adequate theory of mitigation at the penalty phase of Mr. Coral's trial;

"(i) Trial counsel failed to adequately talk to family members about mitigation evidence and failed to adequately prepare them to testify;

"(j) Trial counsel failed to call mental health expert witnesses and other expert witnesses at the sentencing phase of Mr. Coral's trial that would have presented mitigation evidence;

"(k) Trial counsel failed to adequately object to the admission into evidence of a prejudicial presentence investigation report which included inadmissible hearsay, a recounting of the effects of the crime on the victim's family and juvenile arrests;

"(l) Trial counsel failed to object to the use of improper and invalid convictions to negate the mitigating circumstance of no significant prior criminal history;

"(m) Trial counsel failed to object to the impropriety of the trial court's rejecting the jury['s] life [imprisonment] verdict in this case, including its improper reliance on invalid aggravating circumstances and rejection of certain mitigating circumstances;

"(n) Trial counsel failed to properly object to the imposition of the death penalty in this case pursuant to a pattern evincing racial bias;

"(o) Trial counsel failed to properly object to the use of electrocution as a cruel and unusual punishment;

"(p) Counsel failed to provide effective assistance of counsel on appeal to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals and the Alabama Supreme Court. Counsel failed to raise on appeal violations of Mr. Coral's rights in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Alabama Constitution, and Alabama law."

(C.R. 17-19.)

After the petition was filed, the State moved for partial dismissal arguing that "Coral has failed to meet the burden placed on him by Rule 32.6(b) of providing `full disclosure of the factual basis' on the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel." As a result of the State's motion, the circuit court granted Coral 60 days to amend his petition to comply with the requirements of Rule 32.6(b), Ala.R.Crim.P. On the last possible day Coral filed an amended petition. The claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in this petition were virtually identical to those claims made in the original petition. The State again moved for a partial dismissal. On July 1, 1996, the circuit court held a hearing on the State's motion. A transcript of the hearing shows that the circuit court dismissed all but two of the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims for failure to comply with the provisions of Rule 32.6(b), Ala.R.Crim.P. The circuit court did allow Coral to proceed with two ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims; those claims concerned the low statutory compensation for court-appointed attorneys in Alabama and the claim that counsel failed to object to the trial court's consideration of what Coral says was an illegal and...