Harris v. State
Decision Date | 29 October 2004 |
Docket Number | CR-01-1748. |
Citation | 947 So.2d 1079 |
Parties | Louise HARRIS v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
William H. Pryor, Jr., and Troy King, attys. gen., and Tracy Daniel and Jeremy W. McIntire, asst. atty. gen., for appellee, on rehearing.
On July 13, 1989, Louise Harris was convicted in the Montgomery Circuit Court of murder made capital because it was committed for a pecuniary or other valuable consideration or pursuant to a contract or for hire, an offense made capital by § 13A-5-40(a)(7), Ala.Code 1975.
The facts underlying Harris's conviction are as follows.
Harris v. State, 632 So.2d 503, 508-09 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).
The jury recommended by a vote of 7-5 that Harris be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The trial court rejected the jury's recommendation and sentenced Harris to death. This Court affirmed Harris's conviction and sentence of death. Harris v. State, 632 So.2d 503 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed this Court's judgment, Ex parte Harris, 632 So.2d 543 (Ala.1993). The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari review in part, Harris v. Alabama, 512 U.S. 1234, 114 S.Ct. 2736, 129 L.Ed.2d 858 (1994),1 and affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, Harris v. Alabama, 513 U.S. 504, 115 S.Ct. 1031, 130 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1995).
This Court's certificate of judgment was issued on November 18, 1993. On June 22, 1995, Harris, through counsel, filed the instant Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition.2 On August 27, 1998, the circuit court issued an order summarily dismissing several of Harris's claims as being procedurally barred, but granted Harris leave to amend the petition as to several claims that the court found to be insufficiently pleaded. On November 23, 1998, Harris filed an amended petition. Ultimately, the circuit court dismissed all of Harris's claims except for her claim that the prosecution had used its peremptory challenges to exclude African-Americans from jury service because of their race in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), and her claims that she had received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. On July 26 and 27, 1999, a hearing was conducted on those claims. Additional testimony, in the form of a deposition, was taken on July 28, 1999, and was provided to the circuit court. On October 3, 2001, closing arguments were heard and on April 16, 2002, the circuit court issued an order denying the amended petition. Harris appeals.
Before addressing Harris's claims on appeal, we note the following principles that apply to this Court's review of a circuit court's denial of a Rule 32 petition. Because Harris was convicted of capital murder, her direct appeal not only included review of the issues presented by Harris, but also the record was searched for "plain error." Ex parte Harris, 632 So.2d at 544; Harris v. State, 632 So.2d at 542. Thus, "even though this petition challenges a capital conviction and a death sentence, there is no plain-error review on an appeal from the denial of a Rule 32 petition." Dobyne v. State, 805 So.2d 733, 740 (Ala. Crim.App.2000), aff'd, 805 So.2d 763 (Ala. 2001), citing Pierce v. State, 851 So.2d 558, 563 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), rev'd on other grounds, 851 So.2d 618 (Ala.2002). "" Williams v. State, 783 So.2d 108, 112 (Ala.Crim.App.2000)(quoting Brownlee v. State, 666 So.2d 91, 93 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995)).
Claims presented in a petition but not pursued on appeal are deemed to be abandoned. See, e.g., Brownlee v. State, 666 So.2d 91, 93 (Ala.Crim.App.1995)("[w]e will not review issues not listed and argued in brief") that . New claims presented for the first time on appeal are not properly before the appellate court. See Arrington v. State, 716 So.2d 237, 239 (Ala.Crim.App.1997)("[a]n appellant cannot raise an issue on appeal from the denial of a Rule 32 petition which was not raised in the Rule 32 petition") that . Claims listed in an appellate brief that do not include supporting argument, as required by Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R.App. P., are not properly before this Court.
"[W]hen the facts are undisputed and an appellate court is presented with pure questions of law, that court's review in a Rule 32 proceeding is de novo." Ex parte White, 792 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Ala. 2001). However, where there are disputed facts in a post-conviction proceeding resolved by the circuit court ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burgess v. State
... ... "To the extent that the following cases applied the relation-back doctrine to proceedings governed by Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim.P., we overrule those cases: Harris v. State, 947 So.2d 1079 (Ala. Crim.App.2004); McWilliams v. State, 897 So.2d 437 (Ala.Crim.App.2004); Giles v. State, 906 So.2d 963 (Ala.Crim. App.2004); Ex parte Mack, 894 So.2d 764 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); DeBruce v. State, 890 So.2d 1068 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003); Charest v. State, 854 So.2d ... ...
- Hinton v. State
- Clark v. State
- Johnson v. State