Hooks v. State
Decision Date | 29 August 2008 |
Docket Number | CR-04-2220. |
Citation | 21 So.3d 772 |
Parties | Joseph B. HOOKS v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Francis C. Lynch, Jr., Boston, Massachusetts; and David Dawson Schoen, Montgomery, for appellant.
Troy King, atty. gen., and Richard D. Anderson and Beth Jackson Hughes, asst. attys. gen., for appellee.
Joseph B. Hooks, currently an inmate on deathrow at Holman Correctional Facility, appeals the circuit court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief.
In 1985, Hooks was convicted of murdering Donald Bergquist and Hannelore Bergquist during the course of a robbery. The jury recommended, by a vote of 7 to 5, that Hooks be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The circuit court chose not to follow the jury's recommendation and sentenced Hooks to death. Hooks's conviction and death sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. See Hooks v. State, 534 So.2d 329 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), aff'd, 534 So.2d 371 (Ala.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1050, 109 S.Ct. 883, 102 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1989).
In August 1989, Hooks filed a postconviction petition, pursuant to Rule 20, Ala. R.Crim.P.Temp.,1 attacking his conviction and sentence. Hooks filed three amended petitions in March 1996, April 1999, and March 2002. The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing in December 2002. On June 27, 2005, the court issued a 30-page order denying the petition. This appeal followed.
We stated the following facts surrounding the murders in our opinion on direct appeal:
Hooks, 534 So.2d at 334-37. The evidence also showed that Hooks confessed to police that he shot and killed Donald and Hannelore Bergquist.
This is an appeal from the denial of a postconviction petition that was initiated by Hooks. According to Rule 32.3, Ala. R.Crim.P. (formerly Rule 20.3, Ala.R.Crim. P.Temp.): "The petitioner shall have the burden of pleading and proving by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to entitle the petitioner to relief."
Brooks v. State, 929 So.2d 491, 495 (Ala. Crim.App.2005). Hunt v. State, 940 So.2d 1041, 1049 (Ala.Crim.App.2005).
Hyde v. State, 950 So.2d 344, 356 (Ala. Crim.App.2006).
Hooks first argues that his due-process rights were violated by the circuit court's wholesale adoption of the State's proposed order denying postconviction relief. He argues that because the court made no independent findings of fact we should review his claims de novo — giving no deference to the lower court's findings.
As we stated in Hodges v. State, [Ms. CR-04-1226, March 23, 2007] ___ So.3d ___, ___ (Ala.Crim.App.2007):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miller v. State, CR-08-1413
... ... Contrary to the assertions of the Petitioner, case law is clear and unambiguous that adopting in whole or in part an order proposed by the State is not error. Hooks v. State [21 So. 3d 772](Ala. Crim. App. 2008). Page 9 "For the Foregoing [reasons] the 'Objection' is denied." (C. 2117; 2131.) On appeal, Miller reasserts his argument that his due-process rights were violated by the circuit court's adopting the State's proposed order denying his petition for ... ...
-
Sheffield v. State Of Ala.
...assistance, counsel's trial tactics generally do not suffice to support an ineffective-assistance claim. See Hooks v. State, 21 So. 3d 772, 793 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008), citing Grayson v. Thompson, 257 F.3d 1194, 1218 (11th Cir. 2001); Ex parte Lawley. Therefore, Sheffield has failed to demon......
-
Jones v. State
...not raised in Dunaway's consolidated amended Rule 32 petition. Therefore, it is not properly before this Court.’); Hooks v. State, 21 So. 3d 772, 795 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008) (‘These claims were not raised in Hooks's third amended postconviction petition.’)." Stallworth v. State, 171 So. 3d 5......
-
Ingram v. Stewart
...claim because the result of the proceeding would not have been different had the attorney raised the issue.'" Hooks v. State, 21 So. 3d 772, 785 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting United States v. Kimier, 167 F.3d 889, 893 (5th Cir. 1999)). Thus, this claim is denied. (Vol. 29, Tab R#-97, C. 9......