Morris v. State
Decision Date | 29 April 2016 |
Docket Number | CR–11–1925 |
Citation | 261 So.3d 1181 |
Parties | Alfonzo MORRIS v. STATE of Alabama |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Alabama Supreme Court 1151265
Jason H. Casell, Ingrid L. Price, Anna Engh, and Sarah E. Tremont, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and Thomas Govan, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
Alfonzo Morris appeals the circuit court's summary dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., in which he attacked his capital-murder convictions and his resulting sentence of death. We affirm.
In May 2008, Alfonzo Morris was convicted of two counts of capital murder for the intentional killing of Miriam Rochester during the course of a first-degree burglary, § 13A–5–40(a)(4), Ala.Code 1975, and the intentional killing of Miriam Rochester during the course of a first-degree robbery, § 13A–5–40(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975. Following a sentencing hearing, the jury recommended, by a vote of 10–2, that Morris be sentenced to death. After the trial court held the final sentencing hearing, the court sentenced Morris to death. This Court affirmed Morris's convictions and death sentence. Morris v. State, 60 So.3d 326 (Ala.Crim.App.2010).1 On September 17, 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari review, id., and on March 21, 2011, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari review, Morris v. Alabama, 562 U.S. 1287, 131 S.Ct. 1679, 179 L.Ed.2d 616 (2011).
In this Court's opinion on direct appeal, we set out the evidence presented at trial as follows:
and then was taken to the jail.
Morris v. State, 60 So.3d at 336–38 (one footnote omitted).
On September 12, 2011, Morris filed this Rule 32 petition. On November 9, 2011, the State filed its answer and moved to dismiss Morris's petition. While the State's motion to dismiss was pending, Morris filed a response to the State's motion to dismiss, a discovery motion, and two motions for funds for expert assistance. On August 9, 2012, the circuit court entered an order summarily dismissing Morris' Rule 32 petition. On September 7, 2012, Morris filed a postjudgment motion in which he objected to the circuit court's adoption of the State's proposed order and to the circuit court's denial of his motions for discovery and for funds to hire experts, and he requested that the circuit court independently review the claims and grant him a new trial. The postjudgment motion was denied by operation of law.
On appeal Morris reasserts several of the claims he made in his Rule 32 petition. It is well settled that this Court "will not review issues not listed and argued in brief." Brownlee v. State, 666 So.2d 91, 93 (Ala.Crim.App.1995). Allegations that are not expressly argued on appeal are deemed to be abandoned. E.g., Burks v. State, 600 So.2d 374, 380 (Ala.Crim.App.1991). Claims from the Rule 32 petition that Morris chose not to pursue on appeal are deemed to be abandoned and will not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Deardorff v. Bolling
...an effort at judicial economy, Ex parte Borden, 60 So.3d 940, 943 (Ala. 2007), which “is not to be applied lightly”. Morris v. State, 261 So.3d 1181, 1194 (Ala.Crim.App.2016). “Rule 28(a)(10), as well as its predecessor Rule 28(a)(1), [are] firmly established and regularly followed” in Alab......
-
Lockhart v. State
...on claims that are not facially meritorious, i.e., on claims that are subject to summary dismissal. See, e.g., Morris v. State, 261 So. 3d 1181, 1202 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016) ('Morris was not entitled to discovery, because the claims for which he sought discovery were either insufficiently pl......
-
Thompson v. State
...1041, 112 S.Ct. 896, 116 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992)." Williams v. State, 783 So.2d 108, 113 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). See also Morris v. State, 261 So.3d 1181 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016) ; James v. State, 61 So.3d 357 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010) ; Bush v. State, 92 So.3d 121 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009) ; Burgess v.......
-
Burgess v. State
...this part of Burgess's petition (C. 745-94), and we conclude that summary dismissal of those claims was proper under Rule 32.7(d). Morris, 261 So.3d at 1195. The claims this section of Burgess's petition involve repeated allegations that his counsel should have consulted or presented testim......