Hodges v. State
Decision Date | 23 March 2007 |
Docket Number | CR–04–1226. |
Citation | 147 So.3d 916 |
Parties | Melvin Gene HODGES v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Robert L. Aldisert, Jeffrey C. Dobbins, and George K. Fogg, Portland, Oregon; Banurekha Ramachandran, Portland, Oregon; and James David Martin and Robert D. Segall, Montgomery, for appellant.
Troy King, atty. gen., and Jeremy W. McIntire, James R. Houts, J. Clayton Crenshaw, Jasper B. Roberts, Jr., and Tina M. Coker, asst. attys. gen., for appellee.
Melvin Gene Hodges appeals the circuit court's summary dismissal of his Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition for postconviction relief, in which he attacked his capital-murder conviction and his sentence of death.
Hodges was initially indicted for two counts of capital murder for his involvement in the murder of Elizabeth Seaton; he was charged with murder during the course of a kidnapping, § 13A–5–40(a)(1), Ala.Code 1975, and murder during the course of a robbery, § 13A–5–40(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975. Hodges presented evidence concerning racial discrimination in the selection of grand-jury forepersons, and the indictment was dismissed. Hodges was reindicted on March 18, 1999, for murder during the course of a robbery, § 13A–5–40(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975. A jury found Hodges guilty and recommended that he be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole; eight jurors voted to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without parole and four jurors voted to impose a death sentence. The trial court overrode the jury's recommendation and sentenced Hodges to death. On direct appeal, this Court initially remanded the case to the trial court for issues relating to the sentencing order and the weighing of the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances. On return to remand, Hodges's conviction and death sentence were affirmed. Hodges v. State, 856 So.2d 875 (Ala.Crim.App.2001). The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. Ex parte Hodges, 856 So.2d 936 (Ala.2003). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari review. Hodges v. Alabama, 540 U.S. 986, 124 S.Ct. 465, 157 L.Ed.2d 379 (2003). A certificate of judgment was issued on April 2, 2003.
In Hodges v. State, 856 So.2d 875 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) ( ), this Court summarized the facts of the crime as follows:
“The State's evidence tended to show the following. On January 5, 1998, two hunters discovered the nude body of Beth Seaton on the side of County Road 26 in Macon County. The coroner testified that Seaton died as a result of a combination of blunt-force injuries to her head
, neck, chest, and abdomen, the most significant being the crushing injuries to her chest and abdomen, which resulted from having been run over by a vehicle. Tire marks ran vertically up and down Seaton's back. A name tag from the Golden Corral Restaurant with Hodges's name on it was found near Seaton's body.
Hodges v. State, 856 So.2d at 894–96 (footnote omitted). Marlo Murph testified against Hodges pursuant to a plea agreement in which the State recommended that Murph receive a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Hodges v. State, 856 So.2d at 894 n. 1.
On March 30, 2004, through counsel, Hodges filed this Rule 32 petition, in which he raised numerous claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel. The case was assigned to Judge Robert Harper, who had presided over Hodges's trial. On August 6, 2004, Hodges filed an amended petition. On September 3, 2004, the State filed an answer to the amended petition. On October 13, 2004, Hodges filed a response to the State's answer. On October 29, 2004, the State filed a motion for summary dismissal and argued that a majority of the claims in the amended petition were due to be dismissed on procedural grounds. On December 1, 2004, the circuit court granted the State's motion to dismiss and filed an extensive order setting forth the dismissed claims and the reasons for their dismissal. On January 5, 2005, Hodges filed a motion for reconsideration of the circuit court's dismissal order. On January 19, 2005, the State filed a motion to schedule an evidentiary hearing on those claims not dismissed by the circuit court. On January 26, 2005, the circuit court ordered that an evidentiary hearing be held on March 29, 2005. This order was issued by Judge John Denson, because Judge Harper had retired from the bench. On January 28, 2005, Hodges filed a motion opposing the State's motion to set a hearing; Hodges argued a hearing should not be set because the motion for reconsideration of the dismissal remained pending and that setting a hearing date would be premature.
On January 31, 2005, the presiding judge of Lee County appointed retired Judge Robert Harper to preside over the Rule 32 proceeding. On February 10, 2005, the State filed a second motion for summary dismissal, seeking dismissal of four additional claims on grounds that the claims did not raise a material issue of law or fact. On February 16, 2005, Hodges filed a motion opposing the State's second motion to dismiss certain claims. Also on February 16, 2005, the circuit court entered a brief order denying the amended petition in its entirety. In that order, the circuit court also canceled the evidentiary hearing that had been set for March 29, 2005. Hodges filed a notice of appeal on March 24, 2005.
Hodges contends that the circuit court erred when it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Saunders v. Stewart
......Saunders then moved his leg and allowed her to leave the bathroom." Saunders v. State , 10 So. 3d 53, 64 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007) ( Saunders I ). Mrs. Clemons managed to call police after breaking free and obtaining a ...State , 608 So. 2d 345, 347-48 (Ala. 1992)). See also id. (quoting Hodges v. State , 147 So. 3d 916, 946 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007)) ("[A] postconviction claim is 'due to be summarily dismissed [when] it is meritless on its ......
-
Brooks v. State
...(emphasis added) (quoting Bishop v. State, 592 So. 2d 664, 667 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991) (Bowen, J., dissenting)). See also Hodges v. State, 147 So. 3d 916, 946 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007) (a postconviction claim is 'due to be summarily dismissed [when] it is meritless on its face')."Bryant v. Stat......
-
Brooks v. State
......State , 608 So. 2d 345, 347–48 (Ala. 1992) (emphasis added) (quoting Bishop v. State , 592 So. 2d 664, 667 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991) (Bowen, J., dissenting)). See also Hodges v. State , 147 So. 3d 916, 946 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007) (a postconviction claim is ‘due to be summarily dismissed [when] it is meritless on its face’)." 340 So.3d 471 Bryant v. State , 181 So. 3d 1087, 1102 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). With this in mind, we address Brooks's claims. III.A. First, ......
-
Beckworth v. State
......Washington ], 466 U.S. [668] at 694 [ (1984) ].” Hodges v. State, 147 So.3d 916, 942 (Ala.Crim.App.2007), pending on return to second remand. Beckworth made bare allegations of deficient performance and prejudice; thus, summary dismissal of the general claims was proper. 2. Ineffective presentation of mental-retardation “defense” Beckworth argues ......