Smith v. State
Decision Date | 13 February 2009 |
Docket Number | CR–05–0561. |
Citation | 71 So.3d 12 |
Parties | Joseph Clifton SMITHv.STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Alabama Supreme Court 1080589.
Domingo Soto, Mobile (withdrew 11/16/2006); and Chad W. Bryan, Montgomery, for appellant.Troy King, atty. gen., and Pamela Lynn Casey and Corey L. Maze, asst. attys. gen., for appellee.WISE, Judge.
The appellant, Joseph Clifton Smith, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P. In 1998, Smith was convicted of murdering Durk Van Dam during the course of a robbery, an offense defined as capital by § 13A–5–40(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975. The jury, by a vote of 11 to 1, recommended that Smith be sentenced to death, and the circuit court sentenced Smith to death. Smith's conviction and his sentence of death were affirmed on direct appeal. Smith v. State, 795 So.2d 788 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), cert. denied, 795 So.2d 842 (Ala.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 872, 122 S.Ct. 166, 151 L.Ed.2d 113 (2001). We issued the certificate of judgment on March 16, 2001.
In September 2002, Smith filed a Rule 32 petition. The circuit court summarily dismissed the petition after finding that it was untimely filed. 1 We affirmed the circuit court's dismissal without an opinion. Smith v. State, 897 So.2d 1246 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (table). On certiorari review the Alabama Supreme Court reversed this Court's judgment and held that Smith's postconviction petition was timely filed. See Ex parte Smith, 891 So.2d 286 (Ala.2004). The case was remanded to the circuit court and Smith was allowed to amend his petition.
On remand, Smith filed amended petitions in June 2004 and again in January 2005. In March 2005, the circuit court granted the State's motion to dismiss. Smith filed a notice of appeal. We dismissed the appeal after finding that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Smith v. State, 926 So.2d 1095 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (table). Smith then filed a second Rule 32 petition seeking an out-of-time appeal from the denial of his first Rule 32 petition. That Rule 32 petition was granted, and this appeal is an out-of-time appeal from the denial of Smith's first Rule 32 petition.
We stated the following facts surrounding the murder in our opinion on direct appeal:
Standard of Review
This is an appeal from the denial of a postconviction petition—a proceeding initiated by Smith. Rule 32.3, Ala.R.Crim.P., states, in part: “The petitioner shall have the burden of pleading and proving by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to entitled the petitioner to relief.”
In the direct-appeal proceedings we reviewed Smith's capital-murder trial and sentencing proceedings for plain error. See Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P. However, the plain-error standard of review does not apply to the review of postconviction proceedings challenging a death sentence. See Ex parte Dobyne, 805 So.2d 763 (Ala.2001). We review the denial of a postconviction petition under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See Elliott v. State, 601 So.2d 1118 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). “Abuse of discretion” has been defined as: “An appellate court's standard for reviewing a decision that is asserted to be grossly unsound, unreasonable, illegal, or unsupported by the evidence.” Black's Law Dictionary 11 (8th ed. 2004).
Also, the procedural bars contained in Rule 32 apply to all cases, even those challenging a capital-murder conviction and death sentence. See Hunt v. State, 940 So.2d 1041 (Ala.Crim.App.2005); Hooks v. State, 822 So.2d 476 (Ala.Crim.App.2000); State v. Tarver, 629 So.2d 14 (Ala.Crim.App.1993).
I.
Smith first argues that the circuit court erred in summarily dismissing his claim that he is mentally retarded. He asserts that he is mentally retarded and that his sentence of death violates the United States Supreme Court's holding in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). Smith further contends that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on this issue because, he says, the circuit court erroneously relied on evidence presented at his trial concerning his IQ score. Smith asserts that a clinical psychologist testified at his sentencing hearing that Smith's IQ placed him in the bottom 2% of all adults and that the “margin of error” in IQ testing would place his IQ below 70.
The State argues that Smith failed to plead sufficient facts showing that his mental functioning was consistent with the definition of mental retardation adopted by the Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Perkins, 851 So.2d 453, 456 (Ala.2002). Specifically, it asserts that Smith failed to plead any facts to show that he suffered from “subaverage intellectual functioning” or “deficit adaptive functioning.” Neither, it asserts, did Smith “plead any facts showing his IQ was 70 or less.” Indeed, it contends that Smith did not even plead his IQ score in his second amended petition.
In Atkins v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court held that it was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to execute a mentally retarded individual.2 However, the Supreme Court left it to the individual states to define mental retardation. Though Alabama has yet to enact legislation addressing this issue, the Alabama Supreme Court in Perkins held that a defendant is mentally retarded if he or she: (1) has significantly subaverage intellectual functioning (an IQ of 70 or below); (2) has significant defects in adaptive behavior; and (3) these two deficiencies manifested...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woods v. State
... ... See Smith v. State, 71 So.3d 12, 35 (Ala.Crim.App.2008). See also Spencer v. State, 201 So.3d at 593 (Ala.Crim.App.2015) ("Spencer failed to plead the identity of the allegedly biased prospective jurors; therefore, according to Washington [v. State, 95 So.3d 2664 (Ala.Crim.App.2012) ], this claim was ... ...
-
Musgrove v. State
... ... 2d 1097, 1098 (Ala. 2001). "[W]e may affirm a circuit court's ruling on a postconviction petition if it is correct for any reason." Smith v. State , [Ms. CR-08-0638, September 30, 2011] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). "[T]he procedural bars of Rule 32[.2, Ala. R. Crim. P.,] apply with equal force to all cases, including those in which the death penalty has been imposed." Burgess v. Sate , 962 So. 2d 272, 277 (Ala. Crim ... ...
-
Mashburn v. State
... ... See, e.g., Clemons v. State, 123 So.3d 1 (Ala.Crim.App.2012) ; Moody v. State, 95 So.3d 827 (Ala.Crim.App.2011) ; Daniel v. State, 86 So.3d 405 (Ala.Crim.App.2011) ; Windsor v. State, 89 So.3d 805 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) ; Lee v. State, 44 So.3d 1145 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) ; Smith v. State, 71 So.3d 12 (Ala.Crim.App.2008) ; Ferguson v. State, 13 So.3d 418 (Ala.Crim.App.2008) ; McNabb v. State, 991 So.2d 313 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) ; Hyde v. State, 950 So.2d 344 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) ; Boyd v. State, 913 So.2d 1113 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) ; and Tarver v. State, 769 So.2d 338 ... ...
-
Beckworth v. State
... 190 So.3d 527 Rex Allen BECKWORTH v. STATE of Alabama. CR070051. Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama. May 1, 2009. 190 So.3d 533 John C. Neiman, Jr., Birmingham (withdrew 05/18/2009); Sydney Albert Smith, Elba (withdrew 06/12/2009); and Daniel Gary Hamm, Montgomery, for appellant. Troy King, atty. gen., and Michael A. Nunnelley (withdrew 06/30/2008), J. Clayton Crenshaw, and Thomas Govan, asst. attys. gen., for appellee. WELCH, Judge. In 2002 Rex Allen Beckworth was convicted of capital murder, a ... ...