Moody v. State
Decision Date | 18 May 2012 |
Docket Number | CR–09–0641. |
Citation | 95 So.3d 827 |
Parties | Walter Leroy MOODY, Jr. v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Alabama Supreme Court 1110543.
Brandon Buskey, Bryan A. Stevenson, and Randall S. Susskind, Montgomery, for appellant.
Troy King and Luther Strange, attys. gen., and Thomas R. Govan, Jr., and Henry M. Johnson, asst. attys. gen., for appellee.
Walter Leroy Moody, Jr., appeals the circuit court's summary dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P.
In 1996, after a jury trial in which he represented himself, Moody was convicted of two counts of capital murder for the 1989 pipe-bomb murder of Judge Robert S. Vance of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The murder was made capital (1) because it was committed by means of explosives or explosion, see § 13A–5–40(a)(9), Ala.Code 1975, and (2) because Judge Vance was a public official and the murder stemmed from, was caused by, or was related to Judge Vance's official position, act, or capacity, see § 13A–5–40(a)(11), Ala.Code 1975. Moody was also convicted of assault in the first degree, see § 13A–6–20(a)(1), Ala.Code 1975, for injuries sustained by Judge Vance's wife, Helen Vance, in the bomb blast. By a vote of 11–1, the jury recommended that Moody be sentenced to death for his capital-murder convictions, and the trial court followed the jury's recommendation and sentenced Moody to death. The trial court also sentenced Moody to life imprisonment for the assault conviction.
This Court affirmed Moody's convictions and sentences on appeal.1Moody v. State, 888 So.2d 532 (Ala.Crim.App.2003). The facts of the crime are fully set out in that opinion. The Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari review, Ex parte Moody, 888 So.2d 605 (Ala.2004), and this Court issued a certificate of judgment on March 26, 2004. The United States Supreme Court subsequently denied certiorari review on November 1, 2004. Moody v. Alabama, 543 U.S. 964, 125 S.Ct. 442, 160 L.Ed.2d 331 (2004).
Moody timely filed his Rule 32 petition on March 23, 2005, 2 raising numerous claims, including several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court appointed counsel to represent Moody, who had apparently filed his petition pro se, and counsel filed an amended petition on March 2, 2006, which incorporated by reference all the claims raised in Moody's original petition and raised one additional claim. The State filed an answer to Moody's petition and amended petition on July 3, 2006, and a motion for summary dismissal on July 12, 2006. On May 8, 2007, counsel moved to withdraw from representing Moody. The circuit court granted the motion in August 2008, and on September 4, 2008, the court appointed new counsel to represent Moody. On July 20, 2009, Moody's new counsel filed a response to the State's motion for summary dismissal, and a second amended petition,3 which incorporated by reference all the claims raised in Moody's original petition and amended petition, expanded on some of those claims, and raised additional claims. On August 17, 2009, the State filed an answer and motion for summary dismissal of Moody's second amended petition. The circuit court issued an extensive order summarily dismissing Moody's petition and amended petitions on December 28, 2009. This appeal followed.
“ ‘[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). ‘However, where there are disputed facts in a postconviction proceeding and the circuit court resolves those disputed facts, “[t]he standard of review on appeal ... is whether the trial judge abused his discretion when he denied the petition.” ’ Boyd v. State, 913 So.2d 1113, 1122 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (quoting Elliott v. State, 601 So.2d 1118, 1119 (Ala.Crim.App.1992)). ‘On direct appeal we reviewed the record for plain error; however, the plain-error standard of review does not apply to a Rule 32 proceeding attacking a death sentence.’ Ferguson v. State, 13 So.3d 418, 424 (Ala.Crim.App.2008).
Bryant v. State, [Ms. CR–08–0405, February 4, 2011] ––– So.3d ––––, –––– (Ala.Crim.App.2011).
Additionally, Rule 32.7(d), Ala. R.Crim. P., authorizes a circuit court to summarily dismiss a Rule 32 petition
“[i]f the court determines that the petition is not sufficiently specific, or is precluded, or fails to state a claim, or that no material issue of fact or law exists which would entitle the petitioner to relief under this rule and that no purpose would be served by any further proceedings ...”
Moody first contends on appeal that the circuit court erred in summarily dismissing his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. He argues that his ineffective-assistance claims regarding pretrial counsel, L. Dan Turberville and Richard S. Jaffe, were not subject to the preclusions in Rule 32.2(a) and were pleaded with sufficient specificity to entitle him to an evidentiary hearing. He also argues that his ineffective-assistance claims regarding appellate counsel, Bruce A. Gardner, were sufficiently pleaded to entitle him to an evidentiary hearing.
“[W]hen reviewing a petitioner's 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 (1984). The petitioner must establish: (1) that counsel's performance was deficient; and (2) that the petitioner was prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance.
“
“ Ex parte Lawley, 512 So.2d 1370, 1372 (Ala.1987). ‘ ' Lawhorn v. State, 756 So.2d 971, 979 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (quoting Hallford v. State, 629 So.2d 6, 9 (Ala.Crim.App.1992)). ‘A court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.’ Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689.
“ ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brooks v. State
...court's judgment if it is correct for any reason. See Bryant v. State, 181 So. 3d 1087, 1100 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011); Moody v. State, 95 So. 3d 827, 833 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011), and McNabb v. State, 991 So. 2d 313, 333 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007), and the cases cited therein. Moreover, '[o]n direc......
-
Taylor v. Dunn
...... This death-penalty habeas action comes before the Court on petitioner's "Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Prisoner in State Custody under Death Sentence" (doc. 25). The respondent has filed a comprehensive Answer (doc. 33), and both sides have submitted additional detailed ... See , e . g ., Moody v . State , 95 So.3d 827, 843 (Ala.Crim.App. 2011) ("[T]he circuit court correctly found that all of Moody's claims regarding pretrial counsel's ......
-
Jones v. State
......984, 114 S.Ct. 487, 126 L.Ed.2d 437 (1993). One claiming ineffective appellate counsel must show prejudice, i.e., the reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the petitioner would have prevailed on appeal. Miller v. Keeney , 882 F.2d 1428, 1434 and n. 9 (9th Cir. 1989).’ " Moody v. State , 95 So. 3d 827, 836 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011) (quoting Thomas v. State , 766 So. 2d 860, 876 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte Taylor , 10 So. 3d 1075 (Ala. 2005) ). "If a legal issue ‘would in all probability have been found to be without merit’ had counsel ......
-
Brooks v. State
......3d 571, 573 (Ala. 2013). "With limited exceptions not applicable here, the general rule is that this Court may affirm a circuit court's judgment if it is correct for any reason. See Bryant v. State , 181 So. 3d 1087, 1100 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011) ; Moody v. State , 95 So. 3d 827, 833 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011), and McNabb v. State , 991 So. 2d 313, 333 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007), and the cases cited therein. Moreover, ‘[o]n direct appeal we reviewed the record for plain error; however, the plain-error 340 So.3d 426 standard of review does not apply to ......
-
Preventing Waiver of Arguments on Appeal
...v. State, 153 So. 3d 84, 131 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012) (concluding that juror misconduct was grounds for a new trial); Moody v. State, 95 So. 3d 827, 841 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011) (explaining that a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel can be raised in a motion for a new trial).75. Se......