Hodges v. State (Ex parte Hodges.)
Decision Date | 26 August 2011 |
Docket Number | 1100112. |
Citation | 147 So.3d 973 |
Parties | Ex parte Melvin Gene HODGES. (In re Melvin Gene Hodges v. State of Alabama). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Robert D. Segall and J. David Martin of Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, P.A., Montgomery; and Robert L. Aldisert and Nathan Christensen of Perkins Coie LLP, Portland, Oregon, for petitioner.
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and John C. Neiman, Jr., and Prim F. Escalona, deputy attys. gen., for respondent.
Melvin Gene Hodges petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari, which we granted for the limited purpose of determining whether the Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment, insofar as it affirmed the trial court's summary denial of Hodges's petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., alleging juror misconduct during the voir dire examination, conflicts with this Court's decision in Ex parte Burgess, 21 So.3d 746 (Ala.2008). We hold that it does, and we reverse and remand.
Hodges was convicted of the capital offense of murdering Beth Seaton during the course of a robbery, see § 13A–5–40(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975. The jury, by a vote of 8–4, recommended that Hodges be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The trial court, however, sentenced Hodges to death. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Hodges's conviction and sentence. Hodges v. State, 856 So.2d 875 (Ala.Crim.App.2001). This Court affirmed that judgment. Ex parte Hodges,
856 So.2d 936 (Ala.2003), and 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).
Hodges filed a Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief. In his petition, he alleged, among other things, that his “right to a fair trial by an impartial jury was denied by juror misconduct, in violation of Article I, §§ 6 and 11 of the Alabama Constitution, and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.” More specifically, he alleged that his “right to a fair and impartial jury was violated due to the failure of six jurors to respond truthfully to voir dire questions.” According to Hodges's petition, the six jurors failed to respond truthfully to direct questions regarding “a prior criminal conviction, prior treatment for alcohol abuse, prior jury service in a murder trial, prior military service, knowledge of the case, knowledge of the defendant and a prosecution witness, and a spouse with law enforcement experience.”
The State filed a “motion for summary dismissal” of this and other claims in Hodges's Rule 32 petition, arguing that the claims were “procedurally barred from review.” In response, Hodges filed a “memorandum regarding State's response to first amended petition,”1 asserting, among other things, that “trial counsel could not have raised these claims at trial or on appeal” because “[t]rial counsel could not have had any information about this misconduct.” The trial court summarily denied Hodges's petition.
The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the juror-misconduct claim was “procedurally barred by Rule 32.2(a)(5), Ala. R.Crim. P., because [it] could have been, but [was] not, raised on appeal.” Hodges v. State, 147 So.3d 916, 932 (Ala.Crim.App.2007). The court also stated: “Hodges did not allege in his petition that his allegations of juror misconduct could not have been raised at trial or on appeal.” 147 So.3d at 932 n. 4.
After the Court of Criminal Appeals released its opinion in Hodges, this Court decided Ex parte Burgess, supra, in which we reversed a judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remanded the case for remand to the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the merits of a Rule 32 petitioner's claim that jurors in the trial of his case had failed to answer voir dire questions accurately. Hodges sought certiorari review, and we granted his petition to examine this case in light of the rule set forth in Burgess.
The rule of Burgess is that a petitioner seeking relief under Rule 32 for the alleged failure of jurors to respond accurately or truthfully to voir dire questioning is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim, unless it appears on the face of the record that he knew or reasonably should have known of the inaccuracy in time to raise it on appeal. In setting forth that rule, we explained:
21 So.3d at 754. See also Ex parte Harrison, 61 So.3d 986, 991 (Ala.2010) ( ).
In this case, the record does not indicate that Hodges knew or reasonably should have known of the jurors' alleged untruthfulness in time to raise the issue on direct appeal. Indeed, the State concedes that the “record is devoid of information” relating to the alleged juror misconduct. However, the State contends that Hodges's claim is procedurally barred because, the State says, he failed “to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims were either (A) not actually known or (B) could not have reasonably been discovered in time to be raised at trial or on direct appeal.” State's brief, at 1 (emphasis added). “As with all other procedural bars,” the State continues, Essentially, the State asserts that Hodges has failed to satisfy his ultimate evidentiary burden under Rule 32.3 at the pleading stage of these proceedings.
In that connection, Rule 32.3 states:
(Emphasis added.) Preclusion is an affirmative defense to be pleaded by the State. Ex parte James, 61 So.3d 352, 356 (Ala.2009). As the Court of Criminal Appeals has explained in an earlier case:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woodward v. State
... ... on the effectiveness of those attorneys Page 11 based upon conduct that he observed." Ex parte Hill , 591 So. 2d 462, 463 (Ala. 1991). "Once a petitioner has met his burden ... to avoid summary ... (Woodward's brief, p. 29.) Woodward relies on Hodges v. State , 147 So. 3d 916 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007), rev'd on other grounds, 147 So. 3d 973 (Ala ... ...
-
Marshall v. State
... ... The Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari review without opinion on April 25, 2008, Ex parte Marshall (No. 1070461), and this Court, on that same date, issued a certificate of judgment making ... State, 592 So.2d 664, 667 (Ala.Crim.App.1991) (Bowen, J., dissenting)). See also Hodges v. State, 147 So.3d 916, 934 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (a postconviction claim is "due to be summarily ... ...
-
Spencer v. State
... ... [now a Rule 32 petition] is required only if the petition is 'meritorious on its face.' Ex parte Boatwright , 471 So. 2d 1257 (Ala. 1985). A petition is 'meritorious on its face' only if it ... 1091780, July 3, 2013] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2013), and Ex parte Hodges , 147 So. 3d 973 (Ala. 2011). Specifically, Spencer argues that the circuit court violated Supreme ... ...
-
Yeomans v. State
... ... The Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari review on February 25, 2005, Ex parte Yeomans (No. 1040266), and this Court issued its certificate of judgment, making Yeomans's direct ... 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 ... ...