Davis v. State
Decision Date | 04 April 2008 |
Docket Number | CR-03-2086. |
Citation | 9 So.3d 539 |
Parties | Jimmy DAVIS, Jr. v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
William F. Abrams and Nicole Townsend Bartow, Palo Alto, California; Jack Lahr and Joy L. Langford, Washington, D.C.; and Richard Lee Sharff, Jr., Birmingham, for appellant.
Troy King, atty. gen., and Corey L. Maze, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
Lisa Borden and Anne Wohlfeld, Birmingham, for amici curiae National Association of Social Workers and its Alabama Chpapter, for the appellant.
After Remand from the Alabama Supreme Court
The appellant, Jimmy Davis, Jr., appeals the denial of his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim.P., in which Davis attacked his 1993 capital-murder conviction and sentence of death. We affirmed the circuit court's denial of Davis's Rule 32 petition. See Davis v. State, 9 So.3d 514 (Ala.Crim. App.2006). On certiorari review the Alabama Supreme Court reversed in part this Court's decision after finding that we had erroneously applied the procedural default grounds in Rule 32(a)(3) and (5), sua sponte, to bar Davis's claims that his trial counsel's performance was ineffective. See Ex parte Davis, 9 So.3d 537 (Ala. 2007). The Supreme Court remanded the case for this Court to consider the merits of Davis's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims that were raised in Davis's brief.
The facts surrounding the robbery/murder are relevant in addressing the issues raised in Davis's brief to this Court. This Court set out the following facts in our opinion on Davis's direct appeal:
Davis v. State, 718 So.2d 1148, 1155 (Ala. Crim.App.1995) (footnote omitted).
When reviewing a circuit court's denial of a Rule 32 petition we apply an abuse-of-discretion standard. Elliott v. State, 601 So.2d 1118, 1119 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992). On direct appeal we reviewed Davis's trial proceedings for plain error. See Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P. However, the plain-error standard of review does not apply in Rule 32 petitions. Hill v. State, 695 So.2d 1223 (Ala.Crim.App.1997); Neelley v. State, 642 So.2d 494 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993).
This postconviction proceeding was initiated by Davis. According to Rule 32.3, Ala.R.Crim.P., Davis has the "burden of pleading and proving by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to entitle the petitioner to relief."
Moreover, when reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we apply the standard announced by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The petitioner must show: (1) that counsel's performance was deficient; and (2) that the petitioner was prejudiced by the deficient performance.
466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. As the United States Supreme Court further stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miller v. State, CR-08-1413
...assistance of trial counsel was unsuccessful does not prove deficient performance of appellate counsel. See Davis v. State, [9 So. 3d 539, 550 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008)] ('"The fact that a particular defense was unsuccessful does not prove ineffective assistance of counsel."') (quoting Chandle......
-
George v. State
...466 U.S. at 690–91, 104 S.Ct. at 2066.’" Holladay v. Haley, 209 F.3d 1243, 1251–52 (11th Cir. 2000). See also Davis v. State, 9 So.3d 539 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008)." ‘ "The reasonableness of counsel's investigation and preparation for the penalty phase, of course, often depends critically upon......
-
Jackson v. State
...standard of review. Counsel cannot be held ineffective for failing to raise an issue that has no merit. See Davis v. State, 9 So. 3d 539 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008) (opinion on remand from the Alabama Supreme Court)."71 So. 2d at 22-23. Thus, this claim was correctly dismissed because it failed ......
-
James v. State
...statements so as to draw the jury's attention to them.’ Gatto v. Hoke, 809 F.Supp. 1030, 1039 (E.D.N.Y.1992).” Davis v. State, 9 So.3d 539, 552 (Ala.Crim.App.2008). Clearly, counsel's actions were reasonable; thus, James failed to satisfy the Strickland test.E. Next, James argues that his c......