Moffett v. State
Decision Date | 09 October 1984 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 837 |
Citation | 457 So.2d 990 |
Parties | Dick MOFFETT, alias v. STATE of Alabama |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Dick Moffett, pro se.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Martha Gail Ingram, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis. This court affirmed Dixon Moffett's 1980 conviction for murder without opinion on January 30, 1981.
This appellant subsequently filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the trial court alleging that his retained trial counsel was inadequate in representing the appellant at his trial. He states that such counsel was not prepared for trial and had a "lack of zealousness". Appellant further argues that he was not afforded effective assistance by his appointed appellate counsel. He states that such counsel did not comply with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), when filing a no merit letter. For aught that appears in the record, the trial court denied this petition for writ of error coram nobis without a hearing.
We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition as regards the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. A review of the transcript does not support this allegation.
In Duncan v. State [Ms. 8 Div. 84, August 28, 1984], --- So.2d ---- (Ala.Crim.App.1984), Judge Bowen opined that "[i]n Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064-65, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the United States Supreme Court held that 'the proper standard for attorney performance is that of reasonably effective assistance.' " He further stated that
Judge Bowen further stated in Duncan an appellant's counsel's performance must be shown to have prejudiced his defense. " Duncan v. State, supra. Id.
Not only has the appellant failed to establish that the conduct had reduced the trial proceeding to a "farce, sham, or mockery," Robinson v. State, 361 So.2d 1172 (Ala.Crim.App.1978), but he has also fallen far short of establishing that he was denied "reasonably effective" assistance of counsel as set forth in Strickland. See Harris v. Oliver, 645 F.2d 327 (5th Cir.1981); Mitchum v. State, 414 So.2d 168 (Ala.Crim.App.1982); Phelps v. State, 439 So.2d 727 (Ala.Crim.App.1983). Duncan v. State, supra.
Appellant further argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel by his appointed appellate attorney. The record reveals that appellate counsel and trial counsel were not the same person.
The appellant contends that his rights were abridged when counsel filed the following no merit letter and further when she failed to insure he received a copy of said letter in time to file a brief on his behalf. Counsel's no merit letter contained the following language: (R. 32).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hill v. Jones
...court of appeals); Harrison v. State, 461 So.2d 53 (Ala.Crim.App.1984) (failure to file brief in support of appeal); Moffett v. State, 457 So.2d 990 (Ala.Crim.App.1984) (failure to comply with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) in fi......
-
Lacy v. State, 1 Div. 991
...have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' " Moffett v. State, 457 So.2d 990 (Ala.Crim.App.1984). "In making a determination of prejudice, this Court must consider 'the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury.......
-
Carter v. State
...have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' " Moffett v. State, 457 So.2d 990 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), (citations omitted). "In making a determination of prejudice, this Court must consider 'the totality of the evidence before......
-
Holsclaw v. State
...have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." ' Moffett v. State, 457 So.2d 990 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), citations omitted. 'In making a determination of prejudice, this court must consider "the totality of the evidence before t......