McMillan v. State
Decision Date | 11 August 2017 |
Docket Number | CR–14–0935 |
Citation | 258 So.3d 1154 |
Parties | Calvin MCMILLAN v. STATE of Alabama |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Alabama Supreme Court 1170215
Katherine Chamblee and Patrick Mulvaney, Atlanta, Georgia, for appellant.
Luther Strange and Steve Marshall, attys. gen., and James R. Houts, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Calvin McMillan, an inmate on death row at Holman Correctional Facility, appeals the circuit court's summary dismissal of his Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief attacking his capital-murder conviction and sentence of death.
In 2009, McMillan was convicted of murdering James Bryan Martin during the course of a robbery. The jury recommended, by a vote of eight to four, that McMillan be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The circuit court chose not to follow the jury's recommendation and sentenced McMillan to death. This Court affirmed McMillan's conviction and sentence of death on direct appeal. See McMillan v. State, 139 So.3d 184 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010). On August 23, 2013, this Court issued its certificate of judgment.
In August 2014, McMillan filed a timely petition for postconviction relief attacking his capital-murder conviction and death sentence. He filed an amended petition in December 2014 and an amendment to one claim in his petition in February 2015. In March 2015, the circuit court issued a 72–page detailed order summarily dismissing all the claims in McMillan's amended postconviction petition. This appeal followed.
On direct appeal, this Court set out the following facts surrounding McMillan's conviction:
McMillan, 139 So.3d at 191–93 (footnotes omitted).
McMillan appeals the circuit court's ruling dismissing a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition. "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." Rule 32.3, Ala. R. Crim. P.
"If the circuit court is correct for any reason, even though it may not be the stated reason, we will not reverse its denial of the petition." Reed v. State, 748 So.2d 231, 233 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). The plain-error standard of review does not apply when this Court evaluates the denial of a collateral petition attacking a death sentence. See Ex parte Dobyne, 805 So.2d 763 (Ala. 2001), and Rule 45A, Ala. R. App. P. Moreover, the procedural bars in Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., apply to all cases, even those involving the death penalty. Hooks v. State, 822 So.2d 476 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000).
Here, the circuit court summarily dismissed McMillan's petition based on the pleadings. In discussing the pleading requirements related to postconviction petitions, this Court has stated:
Washington v. State, 95 So.3d 26, 59 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012).
Hyde v. State, 950 So.2d 344, 356 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Best v. Richie, CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-00257-KD-N
...Therefore, Best was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing, ALA. CRIM. P.32.6(a),7 or court appointed counsel.8 McMillian v. State, 258 So. 3d 1154, (Ala. Crim. App. 2017) ("The right to counsel does not extend to postconvictionproceedings."). Accordingly, Best has failed to establish cause......
-
Harris v. State
...the mitigation evidence that was actually presented, and the mitigation evidence that could have been presented.' " McMillan v. State, 258 So. 3d 1154, 1168 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. Simpson, 620 Pa. 60, 100, 66 A.3d 253, 277 (2013))." ' " '[W]hen, as here, counsel has......
-
White v. State
...may not have been as complete as others may desire.’ Darling v. State, 966 So.2d 366, 377 (Fla. 2007)." McMillan v. State, 258 So.3d 1154, 1177 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017).This claim was correctly summarily dismissed because it failed to state a material issue of fact or law that would entitle W......
-
Riley v. State
...who seek post-conviction relief in state courts." Ex parte Jenkins, 972 So.2d 159, 164 (Ala. 2005). See also McMillan v. State, 258 So.3d 1154, 1185–86 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017) ("The right to counsel does not extend to postconviction proceedings."), and Hamm v. State, 913 So.2d 460, 473 (Ala.......