James v. State

• Decision Date: 25 June 2010
• Docket Number: CR–04–0395.
• Citation: 61 So.3d 357
• Parties: Joe Nathan JAMES, Jr.v.STATE of Alabama.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

61 So.3d 357

Joe Nathan JAMES, Jr.

v.STATE of Alabama.

CR–04–0395.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 26, 2010.Opinion Overruling Rehearing June 25, 2010.Certiorari Denied Oct. 15, 2010

Alabama Supreme Court 1091374.

Wesley A. Van Winkle, Berkeley, California; and John MacAlpine Wood, Hoover, for appellant.Troy King, atty. gen., and J. Clayton Crenshaw and Michael A. Nunnelley, asst. attys. gen., for appellee.

On Remand from the Alabama Supreme Court

KELLUM, Judge.¹

The appellant, Joe Nathan James, Jr., an inmate on death row at Holman Correctional Facility, appeals the denial of his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P.

In August 1996, James was convicted of murdering Faith Hall during the course of a burglary. He was sentenced to death. In June 1998, this Court reversed James's conviction and sentence based on the erroneous admission of hearsay evidence during his trial. See James v. State, 723 So.2d 776 (Ala.Crim.App.1998). In June 1999, James was again convicted of capital murder and was sentenced to death. This Court affirmed James's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. See James v. State, 788 So.2d 185 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).

In May 2002, James filed a Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition attacking his conviction and sentence. The circuit court denied relief. We affirmed the circuit court's ruling. See James v. State, 61 So.3d 332 (Ala.Crim.App.2006). James then petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court granted certiorari review to consider whether we erred in sua sponte applying the procedural bars set out in Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., and whether we erred in refusing to review the circuit court's denial of James's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed this Court's judgment based on its earlier decision in Ex parte Clemons, 55 So.3d 348 (Ala.2007), and remanded the case for this Court to consider the merits of James's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims and the in forma pauperis claim. See Ex parte James, 61 So.3d 352 (Ala.2009). Pursuant to the Supreme Court's instructions we now consider these issues as they were presented by James in his original brief to this Court.

The facts surrounding Hall's murder are essential to our review of James's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The State's evidence at James's 1999 trial tended to show that on August 15, 1992, James shot and killed Hall. Tammy Sneed testified that she and Hall had been out shopping and were returning to Sneed's apartment on August 15, 1992, when they noticed that James, whom Hall had dated, was following them in a vehicle. They parked at the apartment complex and Hall ran into Sneed's apartment. Bridget Gregory, a neighbor of Sneed's, testified that she saw them arrive and that she, Sneed, and Hall went to Sneed's apartment to talk about what to do about James. James had been following Hall since the two had stopped dating. After some discussion Gregory decided to go to her apartment and telephone the police. Sneed did not have a telephone in her apartment. Gregory said that when she opened the door to Sneed's apartment James pushed past her and entered the apartment armed with a pistol. She said that James confronted Hall about the man she had been out with the night before. Hall begged James to put the gun down because there were children in the apartment. Gregory testified that James pointed the gun at Hall, that he shot her, and that when Hall fell to the floor James shot her again. James then ran out the back door of the apartment. Sneed also testified that she witnessed James shoot Hall.

Standard of Review

This is a postconviction proceeding that was initiated by James pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P.

“Postconviction relief is even further removed from the criminal trial than is discretionary direct review. It is not part of the criminal proceeding itself, and it is in fact considered to be civil in nature. See Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 423–424, 83 S.Ct. 822, 841, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963). It is a collateral attack that normally occurs only after the defendant has failed to secure relief through direct review of his conviction. States have no obligation to provide this avenue of relief....”

Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 556–57, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987).

“[P]ostconviction state collateral review itself is not a constitutional right, even in capital cases. Murray v. Giarratano (1989), 492 U.S. 1, 109 S.Ct. 2765, 106 L.Ed.2d 1; Pennsylvania v. Finley (1987), 481 U.S. 551, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539. A postconviction proceeding is not an appeal of a criminal conviction, but, rather, a collateral civil attack on the judgment. See State v. Crowder (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 151, 573 N.E.2d 652. Postconviction review is a narrow remedy, since res judicata bars any claim that was or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal.”

State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399, 410, 639 N.E.2d 67, 76 (1994).

According to Rule 32.3, Ala. R.Crim. P., “[t]he petitioner shall have the burden of pleading and proving by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to entitle the petitioner to relief.” Although on direct appeal we reviewed James's capital-murder conviction for plain error, the plain-error standard of review does not apply when an appellate court is reviewing the denial of a postconviction petition attacking a death sentence. See Ex parte Dobyne, 805 So.2d 763 (Ala.2001).² “The standard of review this Court uses in evaluating the rulings made by the trial court is whether the trial court abused its discretion.” Hunt v. State, 940 So.2d 1041, 1049 (Ala.Crim.App.2005). However, “[w]hen the facts are undisputed and an appellate court is presented with pure questions of law, that court's review in a Rule 32 proceeding is de novo.” Ex parte White, 792 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Ala.2001).

I.

James argues that his trial counsel's performance was ineffective at both the guilt and the penalty phases of his capital-murder trial.

When reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we apply the standard articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The petitioner must establish: (1) that counsel's performance was deficient; and (2) that the petitioner was prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance.

“Judicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential. It is all too tempting for a defendant to second-guess counsel's assistance after conviction or adverse sentence, and it is all too easy for a court, examining counsel's defense after it has proved unsuccessful, to conclude that a particular act or omission of counsel was unreasonable. Cf. Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 133–34[, 102 S.Ct. 1558, 71 L.Ed.2d 783] (1982). A fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel's challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel's perspective at the time. Because of the difficulties inherent in making the evaluation, a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action ‘might be considered sound trial strategy.’ See Michel v. Louisiana, [350 U.S. 91], at 101[, 76 S.Ct. 158, 100 L.Ed. 83 (1955) ]. There are countless ways to provide effective assistance in any given case. Even the best criminal defense attorneys would not defend a particular client in the same way.”

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

“[T]he purpose of ineffectiveness review is not to grade counsel's performance. See Strickland [ v. Washington], 104 S.Ct. [2052] at 2065 [ (1984) ]; see also White v. Singletary, 972 F.2d 1218, 1221 (11th Cir.1992) (‘We are not interested in grading lawyers' performances; we are interested in whether the adversarial process at trial, in fact, worked adequately.’). We recognize that ‘[r]epresentation is an art, and an act or omission that is unprofessional in one case may be sound or even brilliant in another.’ Strickland, 104 S.Ct. at 2067. Different lawyers have different gifts; this fact, as well as differing circumstances from case to case, means the range of what might be a reasonable approach at trial must be broad. To state the obvious: the trial lawyers, in every case, could have done something more or something different. So, omissions are inevitable. But, the issue is not what is possible or ‘what is prudent or appropriate, but only what is constitutionally compelled.’ Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 107 S.Ct. 3114, 3126, 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987).”

Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1313–14 (11th Cir.2000) (footnotes omitted).

“While counsel has a duty to investigate in an attempt to locate evidence favorable to the defendant, ‘this duty only requires a reasonable investigation.’ Singleton v. Thigpen, 847 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir.(Ala.) 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1019, 109 S.Ct. 822, 102 L.Ed.2d 812 (1989) (emphasis added). See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. at 2066; Morrison v. State, 551 So.2d 435 (Ala.Cr.App.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 911, 110 S.Ct. 1938, 109 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990). Counsel's obligation is to conduct a ‘substantial investigation into each of the plausible lines of defense.’ Strickland, 466 U.S. at 681, 104 S.Ct. at 2061 (emphasis added). ‘A substantial investigation is just what the term implies; it does not demand that counsel discover every shred of evidence but that a reasonable inquiry into all plausible defenses be made.’ Id., 466 U.S. at 686, 104 S.Ct. at 2063.

“ ‘The reasonableness of counsel's actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant's own statements or actions. Counsel's...