Saunders v. State
Decision Date | 16 December 2016 |
Docket Number | CR–13–1064 |
Citation | 249 So.3d 1153 |
Parties | Timothy Wade SAUNDERS v. STATE of Alabama |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Alabama Supreme Court 1160767
Michael Leon Edwards, Birmingham; Adam Kent Israel, Birmingham; and John Garland Smith, Montgomery, for appellant.
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and Kevin W. Blackburn, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Timothy Wade Saunders, an inmate currently on death row at Holman Correctional Facility, appeals the Baldwin Circuit Court's summary dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., attacking his capital-murder conviction and sentence of death.
In August 2005, Saunders was convicted of murdering 77–year-old Melvin Clemons during the course of a robbery and a burglary and of attempting to murder Agnes Clemons. Saunders was sentenced to death for his capital-murder convictions and to life imprisonment for his attempted-murder conviction. We affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. See Saunders v. State, 10 So.3d 53 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007). This Court issued the certificate of judgment on December 1, 2008.
In November 2009, Saunders filed a timely postconviction petition in the Baldwin Circuit Court. (R. 27.) The State filed its answer and a motion to dismiss the petition. (R. 104.) The circuit court summarily dismissed Saunders's petition. In August 2010, Saunders filed a Rule 32.1(f), Ala. R. Crim. P., motion to extend the time for appealing the summary dismissal of his petition, because, he said, he had not been notified that his postconviction petition had been dismissed.1 The circuit court denied that motion. Saunders then filed a notice of appeal. By order dated June 28, 2011, this Court dismissed that appeal after holding that the circuit court's ruling was void because no filing fee had been paid and the payment of the filing fee had not been waived. See Saunders v. State (CR–10–0005, June 28, 2011), 107 So.3d 232 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011) (table).2
While the appeal in Saunders v. State, (CR–10–0005), was pending in this Court, Saunders filed three additional postconviction petitions seeking an out-of-time appeal from the circuit court's ruling dismissing his first postconviction petition. He filed postconviction petitions in August 2010, January 2011, and again in June 2011. The circuit court denied the petition Saunders filed in January 2011, and Saunders appealed. By order dated April 24, 2013, this Court dismissed that appeal after finding that the circuit court's ruling was void because jurisdiction of the case was solely in this Court at the time that the circuit court issued its ruling. See Saunders v. State (CR–10–1375, April 24, 2013), 161 So.3d 1232 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013) (table). We also noted in the order of dismissal, that in the interest of judicial economy, it would be within the circuit court's discretion to consolidate the remaining postconviction petitions Saunders had filed in that court.
The circuit court consolidated Saunders's remaining postconviction petitions and granted Saunders's request for an out-of-time appeal. This appeal is from the circuit court's ruling of February 11, 2010, summarily dismissing Saunders's first postconviction petition.
On direct appeal, this Court stated the following facts surrounding Saunders's convictions as set out by Saunders in his detailed confession to police:
Saunders v. State, 10 So.3d at 67.
As stated above, Saunders appeals the circuit court's order summarily dismissing his Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition. According to Rule 32.3, Ala. R. Crim. P., "[t]he petitioner shall have the burden of pleading and proving by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to entitle the petitioner to relief."
When this Court reviewed the issues raised in Saunders's direct appeal we applied a plain-error standard of review because Saunders was sentenced to death. However, the plain-error standard does not apply to postconviction petitions attacking a death sentence. See Brooks v. State, 929 So.2d 491, 495 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005). Hunt v. State, 940 So.2d 1041, 1049 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).
Rule 32.6(b), Ala. R. Crim. P.
Bryant v. State, 181 So.3d 1087, 1102 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011).
" ‘ "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." ’ " McGahee v. State, 885 So.2d 191, 201 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003), quoting Grady v. State, 831 So.2d 646, 648 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001), quoting in turn, Reed v. State, 748 So.2d 231, 233 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999).
With these principles in mind, we review the issues raised by Saunders in his brief to this Court.
Saunders argues that the circuit court's order of summary dismissal is legally defective because, he says, "it is impossible without evidentiary development to render merits determinations of ineffective assistance of counsel claims that are predicated upon unpresented (sic) evidence." (Saunders's brief, at p. 76.)
When dismissing Saunders's postconviction petition, the circuit court stated, in pertinent part:
(C. 151.)
This Court has repeatedly held that a postconviction petition may be summarily dismissed on its merits. In Bryant v. State, 181 So.3d 1087 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011), we stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Saunders v. Stewart
...(Id. at 336). It affirmed the circuit court's summary dismissal of Saunders's Rule 32 petition. (Doc. 41-41 at 2-45; Saundersv. State, 249 So. 3d 1153 (2016) (Saunders II). The Alabama Supreme Court denied Saunders's petition for writ of certiorari on September 22, 2017. (Doc. 41-45 at 2).6......
-
Brownfield v. State
...be deemed ineffective merely because current counsel disagrees with trial counsel's strategic decisions.’ " Saunders v. State, 249 So.3d 1153, 1172 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016) (quoting Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037, 1048 (Fla. 2000) ). " ‘[A] tactical decision will not form the basis for an......
-
Peraita v. State
...already presented does not deprive the defense of vital evidence.')." Saunders v. State, 249 So.3d 1153, 1171 (Ala.Crim.App.2016). Although Saunders trial counsel's failure to present penalty-phase evidence, Saunders applies equally to trial counsel's failure to present guilt-phase evidence......
-
Dennis v. State
...way. For example, this Court has affirmed the summary dismissal of Rule 32 petitions that are meritless, see Saunders v. State, 249 So. 3d 1153, 1159 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016), that are insufficiently pleaded, see Carruth v. State, 165 So. 3d 627, 640 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014), and that simply fa......