Jackson v. State, 3 Div. 835

• Decision Date: 12 February 1986
• Docket Number: 3 Div. 835
• Citation: 485 So.2d 797
• Parties: Frederick JACKSON, alias v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 797

485 So.2d 797

Frederick JACKSON, alias v. STATE.

3 Div. 835.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Feb. 12, 1986.

John F. Cameron, Montgomery, for appellant.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and J. Anthony McLain and James F. Hampton, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

TYSON, Judge.

Frederick Jackson was indicted in three separate indictments on two charges of robbery in the first degree and one charge of robbery in the second degree. These cases were consolidated for trial and the jury found the appellant guilty as charged in each indictment.

At approximately 4:00 on the afternoon of November 17, 1982, Joyce Holman parked beside the Big Bear grocery store on Mt. Meigs Road in Montgomery. She and her grandson got out of the car and walked toward the store. After they walked a few steps Ms. Holman saw a man running toward her. The man had his hand in his pocket and Holman saw what appeared to be the handle of a knife.

The man struck Holman on the head and took her purse. She testified that the man in question was this appellant.

Earl Calvert, an employee of Big Bear, saw a man standing beside the Coke machine outside the store as Holman got out of her car. He saw the man run toward Holman and take her purse. Calvert pursued the man until he got in a brown car which was driven by another man.

Around 4:30 on the same afternoon, Diane Johns left her apartment at Warren House on the Eastern By-Pass in Montgomery. As she walked to her car, a man knocked her down and took her purse. She identified this appellant as the man who took her purse. The appellant then got into a car with another man and drove away.

Paula Nieman stated that at 7:30 on the evening of November 17, 1982, she was walking to her car in the parking lot of the Montgomery Mall. When she got to her car, she opened the door. At this point, a man with a shotgun approached her and demanded her purse. Nieman gave him the purse and he got in a brown Chevrolet car with another man, whom she identified as this appellant. She obtained the tag number of the vehicle and gave it to the police.

Andre Kellins and Roosevelt Barnes testified that on the afternoon of November 17, 1982, they went riding around with the appellant and Walter Vandiver in Vandiver's brown Chevrolet Monte Carlo. At some point, they went to the Big Bear on Mt. Meigs Road. The appellant got out of the car and returned to the car with a lady's purse. The four then went to Warren House and the same type event also occurred.

Kellins and Barnes were then dropped off in Brookview. Barnes stated he saw a shotgun in the trunk of Vandiver's car that afternoon. Kellins testified that he saw the appellant with a knife.

A.F. Blankenship, an investigator with the Montgomery Police Department, testified he received three similar descriptions of the automobile involved in these three robberies. He ran a check on the tag number of the car which was obtained from Nieman. The car was registered to Walter Vandiver. He issued a "bolo" (i.e., be on the look out) for this vehicle with the tag number; Alabama 4A-04643.

On November 20, 1982, Officer Leslie Sibolski saw this vehicle going down Forbes Road in Montgomery. The vehicle was stopped and held until assistance arrived.

There were two males, two females, and three children in the vehicle when it was stopped. The appellant was one of those occupants. One of the females was wearing a ring that she said she received from the appellant. Johns identified this ring as being in her purse when this purse was taken from her.

The vehicle was impounded. A shotgun was found in the trunk. Two gasoline credit cards and a gas receipt were found in the glove compartment. The credit cards belonged to Nieman and the receipt was for gasoline purchased on one of those cards.

Officer Bob Davis of the Montgomery Police Department obtained two statements from the appellant. Before these statements were taken, the appellant was advised of his Miranda rights and was read a waiver of those rights. The appellant signed this waiver and then made two statements. In those statements, the appellant implicated himself in each of the three robberies. Both statements were signed by the appellant.

I

The sole issue raised by the appellant on appeal is that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. In his brief, the appellant claims he was "denied effective assistance of counsel because there was no effective cross-examination of the State's witnesses, no real pretrial discovery, no attempt to present character witnesses at trial, no attempt to discover and present factual witnesses to support the appellant's case, and no evidence or argument was presented by counsel in opposition to the State's motion for consolidation of cases." (Appellant's brief, p. 6.)

The United States Supreme Court's decision in STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.CT. 2052, 80 L.ED.2D 674 (1984)¹, provides a two pronged analysis for reviewing "ineffective assistance of counsel claims."

"First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable."

Strickland, supra 104 S.Ct. at 2064.

A review of this record discloses that counsel did an...