Marshall v. State
Citation | 182 So.3d 573 |
Decision Date | 02 May 2014 |
Docket Number | CR–10–0696. |
Parties | William Bruce MARSHALL v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Alabama Supreme Court 1131145.
Hope T. Cannon, Birmingham; and Leigh Anne Fleming, Birmingham, for appellant.
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and Kevin Wayne Blackburn, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
William Bruce Marshall, an inmate on death row, appeals the Jefferson Circuit Court's summary dismissal, in part, and denial, in part, of his Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief. We affirm.
In 2005, Marshall was convicted of two counts of capital murder for the killing of his stepdaughter, Alicia Nicole Bentley—one count of murder made capital because it occurred during a burglary, see § 13A–5–40(a)(4), Ala.Code 1975, and one count of murder made capital because it occurred while Marshall, who was over the age of 19 years, sexually abused or attempted to sexually abuse Alicia, who was between the ages of 12 and 16 years, see § 13A–5–40(a)(8), Ala.Code 1975.1 This Court, on direct appeal, summarized the facts underlying Marshall's convictions as follows:
This Court, on direct appeal, affirmed Marshall's convictions and sentence in an opinion issued on August 31, 2007. See Marshall, supra. 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 Marshall's direct appeal final.
On April 23, 2009, Marshall filed the instant Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief (C. 71–138), and he filed his first amended Rule 32 petition on July 10, 2009. (C. 144–216.) The State filed an answer and motion to dismiss Marshall's Rule 32 petition on July 18, 2009 (C. 218–78), and an answer and motion to dismiss Marshall's first amended Rule 32 petition on July 31, 2009. (C. 337–98.) On September 8, 2009, the circuit court conducted a hearing on the State's motions to dismiss Marshall's Rule 32 petition and his first amended Rule 32 petition. The circuit court on September 11, 2009, entered a written order summarily dismissing Marshall's Rule 32 petition in part but also allowing Marshall to amend some of the claims raised in his Rule 32 petition. (C. 495–501.)
On October 2, 2009, Marshall filed a motion to reconsider the circuit court's order summarily dismissing his Rule 32 petition in part, a motion amending those claims that the circuit court had allowed him to amend (C. 502–11), a "motion to reconsider the refusal to allow [Marshall] to amend his petition" (C. 513–17), and a second amended Rule 32 petition. (C. 518–601.) The State filed a response to Marshall's motion to reconsider on October 13, 2009 (C. 602–07), and, thereafter, on November 3, 2009, the State filed an "answer and motion for partial dismissal of Marshall's October 2, 2009, amendment to his first amended Rule 32 petition." (C. 608–22.) On December...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lewis v. State
...805 So. 2d 763 (Ala. 2001)). With these principles in mind, we review the claims raised by [Lewis] on appeal."Marshall v. State, 182 So. 3d 573, 580-82 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014) (some citations omitted).Discussion On appeal, Lewis reiterates most of the claims raised in his petition.3 We addre......
-
Marshall v. Dunn
...counsel's investigation into a mitigation case was deficient and prejudicial. Vol. 14, Tab 56. The ACCA affirmed, Marshall v. State , 182 So. 3d 573 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014), and the Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari , Vol. 46, Tab 67.Marshall filed this petition for writ of habeas corp......
-
Lewis v. State
...805 So. 2d 763 (Ala. 2001) ). With these principles in mind, we review the claims raised by [Lewis] on appeal." Marshall v. State, 182 So. 3d 573, 580-82 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014) (some citations omitted). Discussion On appeal, Lewis reiterates most of the claims raised in his petition.3 We ad......
-
Brooks v. State
...of law and fact.’ Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 698, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984)." Marshall v. State, 182 So. 3d 573, 582-83 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014). Before addressing Brooks's claims on appeal, we also note that the judge who presided over Brooks's capital-murder tria......