ex parte Williams
Decision Date | 14 June 2002 |
Citation | 838 So.2d 1028 |
Parties | Ex parte Lawrence Paultic WILLIAMS. (Re Lawrence Paultic Williams v. State of Alabama.) |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
J.D. Quinlivan, Jr., Mobile, for petitioner.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Andy S. Poole, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.
We granted Lawrence Paultic Williams's petition for a writ of certiorari to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals, in an unpublished memorandum affirming the denial of Williams's Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition, violated "the law of the case" established by the opinion that court had already published in previously affirming Williams's conviction on direct appeal, Williams v. State, 736 So.2d 1134 (Ala.Crim.App.1998), cert. denied, 736 So.2d 1134 (Ala.1999). We conclude that the crucial statement of law in the published opinion on direct appeal is not a holding but is, rather, obiter dictum and therefore was not and is not the law of the case. We conclude moreover, that the dictum is mistaken. Therefore, we affirm the Court of Criminal Appeals in its denial of Williams's Rule 32 petition, and, to prevent confusion in future cases, we disapprove the mistaken dictum in the opinion on direct appeal.
Williams was convicted of reckless murder as defined by § 13A-6-2(a)(2), Ala. Code 1975, as was his codefendant Mark Antonio Thompkins. That subsection reads:
The dictum addresses whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of the mens rea essential to reckless murder. Several passages from the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals on direct appeal state the operative facts:
Williams, 736 So.2d at 1136-37.
The pertinent holding in the opinion on direct appeal is that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding on the essential element of causation—that Williams's conduct caused the death of the victim. This holding, among others, is the basis for the judgment by the Court of Criminal Appeals affirming Williams's conviction for reckless murder.
The opinion expressly recognizes that the issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of the mens rea essential to reckless murder, was not before the Court of Criminal Appeals in the direct appeal. Nonetheless, the opinion states:
Williams, 736 So.2d at 1141-42. (Emphasis added.) While we, the Supreme Court, denied the respective petitions for a writ of certiorari filed not only by Williams but also by the State, our denials did not constitute any endorsement of any feature of the opinion by the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Siebert, 778 So.2d 857, 857 (Ala.2000) (Johnstone, J., concurring specially); Ex parte Terry, 540 So.2d 785 (Ala.1989); Banks v. State, 358 So.2d 480 (Ala.1978); and Hurst v. State, 293 Ala. 548, 307 So.2d 73 (1975).
After Williams's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, he pursued the suggestion in that opinion and filed a Rule 32 petition, the matter now before us, asserting that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of the mens rea essential to reckless murder and that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this aspect of insufficiency of the evidence on direct appeal. The trial court held that the statements by the Court of Criminal Appeals cited by Williams were not the law of the case but were only dictum which conflicted with the holding of Ex parte Simmons, 649 So.2d 1282, 1285-86 (Ala. 1994). Therefore, the trial court held that the evidence was not insufficient to support a finding of the requisite mens rea and that Williams's appellate counsel was not ineffective for refraining from challenging this aspect of the sufficiency of the evidence on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woodward v. State
...dictum, it is not the law of the case established by that judgment. Gray v. Reynolds, 553 So. 2d 79, 81 (Ala. 1989)." Ex parte Williams, 838 So. 2d 1028, 1031 (Ala. 2002). 11."The weight to be attached to the aggravating and the mitigating evidence is strictly within the discretion of the s......
-
Carr v. International Refining & Mfg. Co.
...was necessary to properly address the trial court's judgment and thus is not dicta, as the new defendants assert. See Ex parte Williams, 838 So.2d 1028, 1031 (Ala.2002) ("[O]biter dictum is, by definition, not essential to the judgment of the court which states the dictum Were we asked to r......
-
Henderson v. State
...dictum, it is not the law of the case established by that judgment. Gray v. Reynolds, 553 So.2d 79, 81 (Ala. 1989).’ Ex parte Williams, 838 So.2d 1028, 1031 (Ala. 2002)." Woodward v. State, 123 So.3d 989, 1034 n.10 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011).8 Henderson stated that the argument violated "Caldwe......
-
Woodward v. State
...the dictum, it is not the law of the case established by that judgment. Gray v. Reynolds, 553 So.2d 79, 81 (Ala.1989).” Ex parte Williams, 838 So.2d 1028, 1031 (Ala.2002). 11. “The weight to be attached to the aggravating and the mitigating evidence is strictly within the discretion of the ......