Ferguson v. State
Decision Date | 04 April 2008 |
Docket Number | CR-06-0327. |
Citation | 13 So.3d 418 |
Parties | Thomas Dale FERGUSON v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
T. Thomas Cottingham III, Charlotte, North Carolina; and Vance E. Salter, Miami, Florida, for appellant.
Troy King, atty. gen., and Kevin W. Blackburn, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Thomas Dale Ferguson, currently an inmate on death row at Holman Penitentiary, appeals the circuit court's summary denial of his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P.
In June 1998, Ferguson was convicted of four counts of capital murder for murdering Harold Pugh and his 11-year-old son, Joey Pugh. The jury recommended, by a vote of 11 to 1, that Ferguson be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The circuit court chose not to follow the jury's recommendation and sentenced Ferguson to death. His convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. See Ferquson v. State, 814 So.2d 925 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), aff'd, 814 So.2d 970 (Ala.2001). This Court issued the certificate of judgment for Ferguson's direct appeal on September 25, 2001.
On March 27, 2003, Ferguson filed a postconviction petition pursuant to Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., attacking his convictions and sentence of death. In May 2005, Ferguson filed a motion requesting that his sentence be modified. In a 65-page order the circuit court summarily denied the petition; this appeal followed.
The following facts surrounding the murders were set out by this Court on direct appeal:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woods v. State
... ... "Though we reviewed the claims on [Woods's] direct appeal for plain error, the plain-error standard of review does not apply to a postconviction petition attacking a capital-murder conviction and death sentence. See Ferguson v. State, 13 So.3d 418, 424 (Ala.Crim.App.2008) ; Waldrop v. State, 987 So.2d 1186 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) ; Hall v. State, 979 So.2d 125 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) ; Gaddy v. State, 952 So.2d 1149 (Ala.Crim.App.2006). In addition, "[t]he procedural bars of Rule 32 apply with equal force to all cases, ... ...
-
Miller v. State
... ... 2004) ... Though we reviewed the claims on Miller's direct appeal for plain error, the plain-error standard of review does not apply to a postconviction petition attacking a capital-murder conviction and death sentence. See Ferguson v. State , 13 So. 3d 418, 424 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008); Waldrop v. State , 987 So. 2d 1186 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007); Hall v. State , 979 So. 2d 125 Page 7 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007); Gaddy v. State , 952 So. 2d 1149 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006). "In addition, ' [t]he procedural bars of Rule 32 apply with ... ...
-
George v. State
... ... Standard of Review "On direct appeal we reviewed the record for plain error; however, the plain-error standard of review does not apply to a Rule 32 proceeding attacking a death sentence." Ferguson v. State , 13 So.3d 418, 424 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008). See also Mashburn v. State , 148 So.3d 1094, 1104 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013). " The burden of proof in a Rule 32 proceeding rests solely with the petitioner, not the State. Davis v. State , 9 So.3d 514, 519 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006), rev'd on other ... ...
-
Jones v. State
... ... State , 181 So. 3d 1087, 1102 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011), quoting other cases). On direct appeal, this Court reviewed the trial proceedings for plain error. See Rule 45A, Ala. R. App. P. However, the plain-error standard of review does not apply in a postconviction proceeding. See, e.g., Ferguson v. State , 13 So. 3d 418, 424 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008). Additionally, "[t]he procedural bars of Rule 32 apply with equal force to all cases, including those in which the death penalty has been imposed." Brownlee v. State , 666 So. 2d 91, 93 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995). With certain exceptions not ... ...