Ex Parte Burgess, 1070635.
Decision Date | 05 September 2008 |
Docket Number | 1070635. |
Citation | 21 So.3d 746 |
Parties | Ex parte Roy BURGESS, Jr. (In re Roy Burgess, Jr. v. State of Alabama). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Aaryn M. Urell, Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama, Montgomery, for petitioner.
Troy King, atty. gen., and Andy S. Poole, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.
Roy Burgess, Jr., petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari to review whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in affirming the Morgan Circuit Court's denial of his Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief. We issued the writ of certiorari to review only whether Burgess's claims of juror misconduct, arising from the alleged failure of several jurors to accurately answer questions during the voir dire examination, are precluded under Rule 32.2(a)(3) and (5), Ala. R.Crim. P. For the reasons discussed below, we hold that the claims are not precluded, and we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the case.
Burgess was convicted of capital murder and was sentenced to death in 1994. See § 13A-5-40(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975. On direct appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Burgess's conviction and sentence. Burgess v. State, 811 So.2d 557 (Ala.Crim.App.1998). This Court affirmed Burgess's conviction, reversed his death sentence, and remanded the cause to the Court of Criminal Appeals with instructions for that court to remand the cause to the trial court for resentencing. Ex parte Burgess, 811 So.2d 617 (Ala.2000).
In accordance with this Court's instructions, the Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the cause to the trial court for that court to reevaluate Burgess's sentence. Burgess v. State, 811 So.2d 633 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). On remand, the trial court resentenced Burgess to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed that sentence. Burgess v. State, 811 So.2d 633 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) ( ).
Burgess first filed a Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief in July 2002. He then amended the petition in January 2003 and again in November 2004. Claim 13 of the petition, as last amended, asserted that "[Burgess's] right to [an] impartial jury was violated by jurors' consideration of extraneous evidence and failure to accurately answer voir dire questions." Burgess supported this claim as follows:
(Citations to the record omitted.)
The trial court summarily dismissed Burgess's Rule 32 petition. In its order, the trial court found that the claims of juror misconduct were precluded from review under Rule 32.2(a)(3) and (5), Ala. R.Crim. P., because the claims were not raised on appeal or in Burgess's motion for a new trial. Rule 32.2, Ala. R.Crim. P., "Preclusion of Remedy," provides:
The trial court further found that Burgess appealed the order dismissing his Rule 32 petition to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
The Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the cause to the trial court for a determination of "the factual basis of Burgess's allegations that several jurors failed to fully respond to voir dire questions and to determine when and how Burgess discovered the basis of these claims, and if the claims could have been raised by newly appointed counsel in Burgess's motion for a new trial." Burgess v. State, [Ms. CR-05-0421, Sept. 29, 2006] 21 So.3d 745 (Ala. Crim.App.2006).
The State sent the trial court a copy of its brief on direct appeal and a letter explaining its position on remand. The trial court then ordered Burgess to file the following:
In response to the trial court's order for statements "setting forth with specificity the factual basis of [Burgess's] allegations" of juror misconduct, Burgess proffered the following as facts:
In response to the trial court's order for statements "setting forth with specificity when and how [Burgess] and/or his counsel discovered the basis of [Burgess's] allegations that several jurors failed to fully respond to voir dire questions," Burgess's attorney in his Rule 32 proceeding stated that the "failure-to-disclose claims were discovered by undersigned counsel in a postconviction investigation." Burgess's attorney then asserted that Burgess's "claims were not raised at trial or on direct appeal because counsel had no information that such misconduct had occurred and therefore was under no obligation to raise the claims."
The trial court did not hold an evidentiary hearing. Based upon the submissions from Burgess and the State, the trial court entered an order on remand from the Court of Criminal Appeals summarily denying Burgess's Rule 32 petition. That order states, in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jenkins v. Allen
... ... Ex parte Jenkins , 627 So. 2d 1054 (Ala. 1993). On March 28, 1994, the United States Supreme Court denied ... to allow the petitioner to pursue a second state Rule 32 petition based upon Ex Parte Burgess , 21 So.3d 746 (Ala. 2008). (Doc. 25). On October 1, 2008, Jenkins filed a second Rule 32 petition ... ...
-
Gillis v. Frazier
... ... Walker, 459 So.2d 861 (Ala.1984) ; Ex parte Hartford Ins. Co., 394 So.2d 933, 93536 (Ala.1981) ; Rebel Oil Co. v. Pike, 473 So.2d 529 ... "As we indicated in [ Ex parte ] Burgess, [21 So.3d 746 (Ala.2008),] however, the very nature of juror misconduct is such that a defendant ... ...
-
Jackson v. State
... ... See Ex parte Jackson , 836 So. 2d 973 (Ala. 2001). The Supreme Court affirmed Jackson's convictions and sentence ... case to the circuit court in light of the Alabama Supreme Court's decision in Ex parte Burgess , 21 So. 3d 746 (Ala. 2008), for that court to consider whether Jackson's claims of ... ...
-
Jackson v. State
... ... Ex parte Jackson, 836 So.2d 979 (Ala.2002). On July 30, 2003, Jackson filed a Rule 32, ... In Ex parte Burgess, 21 So.3d 746 (Ala.2008), the Alabama Supreme Court held that a juror-misconduct claim is ... ...