Hinton v. State (Ex parte Hinton)
Decision Date | 17 October 2008 |
Docket Number | 1051390. |
Citation | 172 So.3d 332 |
Parties | Ex parte Anthony Ray HINTON (In re Anthony Ray Hinton v. State of Alabama). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Bryan A. Stevenson, Cathleen I. Price, Charlotte R. Morrison, and Aaryn M. Urell, Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama, Montgomery, for petitioner.
Troy King, atty. gen., and Corey L. Maze, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.
Anthony Ray Hinton challenges his two capital-murder convictions and the resulting sentences of death. We granted certiorari review to determine one issue: whether Hinton was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel allegedly failed to procure a competent firearms-identification expert to testify in his defense.
Hinton was convicted in September 1986 of two counts of murder made capital because the murders were committed during the course of a robbery. The jury recommended by a vote of 10–2 that Hinton be sentenced to death on each count. The trial court accepted the jury's advisory verdict and sentenced Hinton to death. Hinton appealed.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences. Hinton v. State, 548 So.2d 547 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). This Court then affirmed the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Ex parte Hinton, 548 So.2d 562 (Ala.1989), and the United States Supreme Court denied Hinton's petition for certiorari review. Hinton v. Alabama, 493 U.S. 969, 110 S.Ct. 419, 107 L.Ed.2d 383 (1989).
Hinton subsequently filed a petition pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., challenging his convictions and sentences. The petition was amended several times. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the petition. Hinton appealed the trial court's denial of his Rule 32 petition to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Hinton v. State, 172 So.3d 249 (Ala.Crim.App.2006). Hinton filed an application for rehearing, which was overruled. He then petitioned this Court for certiorari review.
Hinton's certiorari petition alleges numerous grounds for review, including, among other things, that evidence existed that allegedly proved that he was innocent, that the State failed to disclose certain exculpatory evidence before trial, and that he had been denied the effective assistance of trial counsel.
Because the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion thoroughly refuted most of Hinton's arguments, we granted the petition as to only one ground—whether Hinton's trial counsel was ineffective in failing to procure a competent firearms-identification expert to testify in Hinton's defense.
The facts of this case are set out in detail in the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion on direct appeal. 548 So.2d at 550–53. However, we briefly note the following:
This case involves two murders committed during two separate robberies; there was also a third robbery in which the victim survived. The two murders involved two factually similar robberies committed at fast-food restaurants located in the Birmingham area late at night: in both robberies, the victims, who were working alone closing the restaurants, were shot in the head twice with a .38 caliber handgun and were left in or near the coolers in the restaurants. In the third robbery, the victim was wounded
by a gunshot but was able to escape. Hinton was later identified as the gunman in the third robbery, and a .38 caliber revolver was recovered from Hinton's home (hereinafter “the Hinton revolver”).
The testimony at trial tended to show that Hinton was the gunman in the third robbery; however, the only evidence linking Hinton to the two murders were forensic comparisons of the bullets recovered from those crime scenes to the Hinton revolver. At trial, the State called as witnesses two forensic examiners, both of whom testified that the bullets recovered from all three crime scenes had been fired from the Hinton revolver.
In rebuttal at trial, the defense presented its own expert witness, Andrew Payne. Payne testified that he had examined each of the bullets recovered from the three robberies and bullets from the Hinton revolver. He concluded that, based on his examination, the bullets recovered from the robberies had not been fired from the Hinton revolver.1
Hinton argued in his Rule 32 petition that it was undisputed that a competent firearms-identification expert was required for an effective defense at trial because, he contended, the State's case against him hinged on linking the bullets recovered from the two murders to the Hinton revolver. Hinton argued that his trial counsel knew that a competent expert was indispensable to his case. Hinton argued, however, that his counsel instead retained a retired engineer, Payne, who, Hinton maintained, was not qualified and who was not a competent firearms-identification expert. The State, on the other hand, argued that Payne was indeed qualified and competent.
After reviewing the arguments and the record before us, we conclude that Judge Shaw, in his dissent to the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion, correctly noted that a determination of this issue is premature:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Gissendanner
... ... State , 601 So. 2d 1118, 1119 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992), citing Ex parte Heaton , 542 So. 2d 931 (Ala. 1989). Judge Joiner and Judge Burke further argue in their dissents ... 288 So. 3d at 966. In Ex parte Hinton , 172 So. 3d 348 (Ala. 2012), the Alabama Supreme Court stated that when a lower court bases a ... ...
-
State v. Gissendanner, CR-09-0998
... ... ___ So. 3d at ___. In Ex parte Hinton , 172 So. 3d 348 (Ala. 2012), the Alabama Supreme Court stated that when a lower court bases ... ...
-
Hinton v. State
... ... Morrison, and Aaryn M. Urell, Montgomery, for appellant. Troy King and Luther Strange, attys. gen., and Corey L. Maze and Jon B. Hayden, asst. attys. gen., for appellee. On Remand from the Alabama Supreme Court PER CURIAM. In accordance with the Alabama Supreme Court's opinion in Ex parte Hinton, 172 So.3d 332 (Ala.2008), we remand this case to the circuit court for that court to conduct proceedings that are consistent with that opinion. On remand, the circuit court shall take all necessary action to see that the circuit clerk makes due return to this court at the earliest possible ... ...
-
Hinton v. State
... ... R.Crim. P., as to whether Andrew Payne, whom trial counsel had procured in Hinton's defense, was, in fact, qualified as an expert in firearms identification. Ex parte Hinton, 172 So.3d 332 (Ala.2008) (Hinton IV ). The Court then remanded the case for this Court to remand the case for the trial court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 32.9, Ala. R.Crim. P., making specific findings as to whether Andrew Payne was indeed qualified and competent to testify as a ... ...