Ex parte Windsor
Citation | 683 So.2d 1042 |
Decision Date | 18 October 1996 |
Docket Number | 1931643. |
Parties | Ex parte Harvey Lee WINDSOR. (Re Harvey Lee Windsor v. State). |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Kathryn V. Stanley, Montgomery, Hugh Holladay, Pell City, and Ray Lowery, Pell City, for Petitioner.
Jeff Sessions, Atty. Gen., and Gilda Branch Williams, Deputy Atty. Gen., for Respondent.
Harvey Lee Windsor was convicted on June 12, 1992, of the capital murder of Rayford Howard. The murder occurred during the course of a robbery of a convenience store. Following a sentencing hearing, the jury unanimously recommended that Windsor be sentenced to death. The trial court accepted the recommendation. Initially, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1013 (Ala.Cr. App.1993); however, this Court granted the State's petition for the writ of certiorari and reversed the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1021 (Ala.1994). Thereafter, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Windsor's conviction. See Ex parte Windsor, 683 So.2d 1027 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). We have now granted Windsor's petition for certiorari review. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
At trial, the State offered evidence that Harvey Lee Windsor and an accomplice, Colon Lavon Guthrie, robbed two convenience stores. The owner of each store was fatally shot. This appeal addresses Windsor's conviction for the capital murder of Rayford Howard, who was killed in the first of those two robberies. The statement of facts set out by the Court of Criminal Appeals in its June 17, 1994, opinion included the following:
Windsor argues that the indictment charging him with capital murder was fatally defective. We hereby adopt the reasoning of the Court of Criminal Appeals in its June 17, 1994, opinion, in holding that the indictment was not constitutionally vague or fatally defective. That court stated:
683 So.2d at 1032. See also Acres v. State, 548 So.2d 459, 462-64 (Ala.Cr.App.1987).
Windsor contends that the trial court should have granted his motion for a change of venue and that its failure to do so constituted reversible error. We disagree.
Buskey v. State, 650 So.2d 605, 609-10 (Ala. Cr.App.1994). The trial judge questioned the veniremembers regarding their knowledge of the facts of this case. The lack of response he received when he asked which members of the venire were familiar with the case supports his denial of the motion for a change of venue. There was no abuse of discretion.
Windsor contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant him a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. State
..."Duke v. State, 889 So.2d 1, 17 (Ala. Crim.App.2002), quoting Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1027, 1033 (Ala.Crim. App.1994), aff'd 683 So.2d 1042 (Ala. 1996). "The Alabama Supreme Court in 1877 recognized that there are instances when a defendant may lawfully be physically restrained during t......
-
Wynn v. State
...cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1146, 117 S.Ct. 1319, 137 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997); Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1027 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), aff'd, 683 So.2d 1042 (Ala.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1171, 117 S.Ct. 1438, 137 L.Ed.2d 545 (1997); Barbour v. State, 673 So.2d 461 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994), aff'd, 673 ......
-
Reynolds v. State Of Ala.
...778 F. 2d 623, 629 n.6 (11th Cir. 1985), cert, denied, 484 U.S. 872, 108 S. Ct. 201, 98 L.Ed.2d 152 (1987)."'"Ex parte Windsor, 683 So. 2d 1042, 1061 (Ala. 1996) (quoting Kuenzel v. State, 577 So. 2d 474, 489 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)). " Vanpelt v. State [Ms. CR-06-1539, December 18, 2009] __......
-
McGowan v. State
...not adequately raised before the trial court, and, thus, we review this issue for plain error, Rule 45A, Ala. R.App. P. In Ex parte Windsor, 683 So.2d 1042 (Ala.1996), Windsor argued that the trial court erred in allowing the State to offer evidence, in his capital-murder prosecution, indic......