Dearman v. State

• Decision Date: 05 August 2022
• Docket Number: CR-18-0060
• Parties: Derrick Dearman v. State of Alabama
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Derrick Dearman v. State of Alabama

No. CR-18-0060

Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

August 5, 2022

Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court (CC-17-1628; CC-17-1629; CC-17-1630; CC-17-1631; and CC-17-1632)

McCOOL, JUDGE

The appellant, Derrick Dearman, was charged with six counts of murder made capital for intentionally killing six people - Robert Lee Brown, Chelsea Reed, Chelsea Reed's unborn child, Justin Reed, Joseph Adam Turner, and Shannon Randall - during the course of a burglary, see § 13A-5-40(a)(4), Ala. Code 1975, six counts of murder made capital because the victims were murdered by one act or pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, see § 13A-5-40(a)(10), Ala. Code 1975, and two counts of first-degree kidnapping, see § 13A-6-43, Ala. Code 1975. In exchange for the State dismissing the two capital-murder charges related to the murder of the unborn child and the two first-degree kidnapping charges, Dearman pleaded guilty to five counts of murder made capital because the murders were committed during a burglary and five counts of murder made capital because the victims were murdered by one act or pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct. The matter was then presented to a jury for the jury to determine whether the State had proven its case against Dearman beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by § 13A-5-42, Ala. Code 1975. The jury returned a verdict of guilty for each of the 10 counts of capital murder. Subsequently, during the penalty-phase of Dearman's trial, the jury unanimously recommended a sentence of death. On October 12, 2018, the circuit court followed the jury's recommendation and sentenced Dearman to death. Dearman was also ordered to pay $1,000 to the Alabama Crime Victims Compensation Commission. This appeal, which is automatic in a case involving the death penalty, followed. See § 13A-5-53, Ala. Code 1975.

Brief Recitation of the Facts

Dearman and Laneta Lester were involved in a longtime, volatile relationship. On the evening of August 19, 2016, Lester was staying at the residence of her brother, Joseph Adam Turner and his wife, Shannon Randall, in Citronelle. Dearman was told that he was not allowed to stay the night, and he had been asked to leave earlier in the evening. In the early morning hours of August 20, 2016, Dearman broke into the house through two sliding glass doors on the front of the house, which were locked at the time. Dearman was armed with an axe that he had retrieved from the front yard of Randall's residence. Dearman proceeded to use the axe to strike Robert Lee Brown, who was asleep in the recliner in the living room just inside the door of the house, multiple times in his head. Lester was asleep on an air mattress in the living room. Dearman then proceeded to a bedroom in the residence that was occupied by Turner, Randall, and their three-month-old infant. Dearman proceeded to strike Turner multiple times in the head with the axe. Dearman also struck Randall in the head with the axe when Randall was awakened by Dearman's presence. Dearman then went into another bedroom in the house that was occupied by Chelsea Reed ("Chelsea")^[1] and Justin Reed ("Justin"). Dearman confronted and struck Chelsea multiple times with the axe before turning to Justin and striking him multiple times with the axe, as Dearman and Justin wrestled for a gun that Justin possessed. Brown, Chelsea and Justin were severely injured, but were not killed after being struck by the axe. Next, Dearman used the gun that he had taken from Justin to shoot Chelsea, Justin, and Turner. Dearman subsequently shot Randall in the back of the head as she lay in the bed with the infant. The infant was unharmed. Dearman returned to the living room where Brown was still suffering from the axe wounds, and Dearman shot Brown in the head. Lester was unharmed. Dearman then stole the keys to Randall's vehicle and fled the scene with the infant and Lester. The following day, Dearman turned himself in to law enforcement.

Procedural History

On March 24, 2017, Dearman was indicted for 12 counts of capital murder and 2 counts of first-degree kidnapping. On May 18, 2017, Dearman appeared in circuit court with his counsel and pleaded not guilty to each charge.

At a subsequent hearing held on August 14, 2017, the court stated that it had received a copy of a letter that had been handwritten by Dearman. The letter was addressed to the district attorney and was postmarked July 10, 2017. The court indicated that a copy of the letter had been delivered to the court by the district attorney at Dearman's request. According to the court, Dearman indicated in the letter that he intended to plead guilty to the charges against him; however, Dearman indicated that, after talking to his counsel, he was going to allow his not-guilty plea to stand. That same day, the circuit court ordered that Dearman undergo a mental evaluation.

At a status conference held on April 18, 2018, Dearman asked the court to allow him to plead guilty and inquired about the possibility of speeding up the guilty-plea process; however, the circuit court explained that the court had to wait until it had received the reports from the mental evaluations performed on Dearman before proceeding with the guilty-plea process.

On August 27, 2018, Dearman filed a motion for a hearing to determine his competency to stand trial. On August 30, 2018, after it had reviewed the mental-evaluation reports, the circuit court held a hearing on the issue of whether reasonable grounds existed to doubt Dearman's competency, during which the circuit court found that no reasonable grounds existed to doubt Dearman's mental competency either to plead guilty or to stand trial. At the hearing, Dearman again informed the circuit court that he intended to plead guilty and that he wanted to waive his right to counsel. Following the hearing, the circuit court issued a written order denying Dearman's motion for a competency hearing.

The next day, on August 31, 2018, the circuit court conducted a hearing regarding Dearman's request to proceed without the assistance of counsel. The circuit court found that Dearman had "knowingly, freely, intelligently, and voluntarily waived [his] right to assistance of counsel." (R. 192.) The circuit court appointed advisory counsel to be present and available to assist Dearman during trial proceedings. Following a lengthy colloquy, the circuit court also accepted Dearman's guilty plea to five counts of murder made capital because the murders were committed during a burglary and five counts of murder made capital because the victims were murdered by one act or pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct.

Pursuant to § 13A-5-42, Ala. Code 1975, the matter was presented to a jury so the jury could determine whether the State had proven its case against Dearman beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury returned a verdict of guilty for 10 counts of capital murder. Following a penaltyphase of trial, the jury unanimously recommended a sentence of death. On October 12, 2018, the circuit court followed the jury's recommendation and sentenced Dearman to death. This appeal follows.

Standard of Review

This Court reviews the proceedings before and during the guilt phase of the trial for jurisdictional errors. See § 13A-5-42, Ala. Code 1975; see also Davis v State, 740 So.2d 1115, 1118 (Ala.Crim.App.1998); Hutcherson v. State, 727 So.2d 846, 851 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). Further, this Court reviews the penalty-phase proceedings for any error, whether preserved or plain, as required by Rule 45A, Ala. R. App. P., which provides:

"In all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant."

Additionally, this Court has explained the plain-error rule as follows:

"'"Plain error is defined as error that has 'adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant.' The standard of review in reviewing a claim under the plain-error doctrine is stricter than the standard used in reviewing an issue that was properly raised in the trial court or on appeal. As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is 'particularly egregious' and if it 'seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala. 1998), cert. denied 526 U.S. 1133, 119 S.Ct. 1809, 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999)."'

"Ex parte Brown, 11 So.3d 933, 935-36 (Ala. 2008) (quoting Hall v. State, 820 So.2d 113, 121-22 (Ala.Crim.App.1999)). See Ex parte Walker, 972 So.2d 737, 742 (Ala. 2007); Ex parte Trawick, 698 So.2d 162, 167 (Ala. 1997); Hyde v. State, 778 So.2d 199, 209 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) ('To rise to the level of plain error, the claimed error must not only seriously affect a defendant's "substantial rights," but it must also have an unfair prejudicial impact on the jury's deliberations.'). See also Harris v. State, 2 So.3d 880, 896 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (quoting Hall v. State, 820 So.2d 113, 121-22 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)). Although [a defendant's] failure to object at trial will not preclude this Court from reviewing an issue, it will weigh against any claim of prejudice he now makes on appeal. See Dotch v. State, 67 So.3d 936, 965 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (citing Dill v. State, 600 So.2d 343 (Ala.Crim.App.1991)). Further,

"'"'the plain[-]error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be "used sparingly, solely in

...