State v. Gissendanner
Decision Date | 23 October 2015 |
Docket Number | CR-09-0998 |
Citation | 288 So.3d 923 |
Parties | STATE of Alabama v. Emanuel Aaron GISSENDANNER, Jr. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
On Application for Rehearing
The opinion of December 19, 2014, is withdrawn, and the following opinion is substituted therefor.
The State of Alabama appeals the circuit court's ruling granting Emanuel Aaron Gissendanner's Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief and setting aside Gissendanner's capital-murder conviction and sentence of death.
In 2003, Gissendanner was convicted of murdering Margaret Snellgrove during the course of a kidnapping and a robbery and of possessing or uttering a forged instrument.1 He was sentenced to death. Gissendanner's convictions and sentence of death were affirmed on direct appeal. Gissendanner v. State, 949 So. 2d 956 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006), cert. denied, 949 So. 2d 956 (Ala. 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1222, 127 S.Ct. 1283, 167 L.Ed.2d 103 (2007). This Court issued the certificate of judgment for Gissendanner's direct appeal on August 25, 2006.
In August 2007, Gissendanner filed a timely postconviction petition pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., attacking his conviction and sentence. He filed an amended petition in June 2009. In August 2009, the circuit court conducted an evidentiary hearing. On March 30, 2010, the circuit court, adopting a significant portion of Gissendanner's closing brief in support of relief, found that Gissendanner had been denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel, and it set aside his conviction and his sentence. The State appeals that ruling. See Rule 32.10(a), Ala. R. Crim. P.2
The circuit court set out the following facts surrounding Snellgrove's murder in its order sentencing Gissendanner to death:
(Trial C.R. 140-43; footnotes omitted.)
The State appeals the circuit court's order granting Gissendanner's Rule 32 petition. The circuit court specifically found that Gissendanner had been denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel at his capital-murder trial and sentencing hearing.
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel the petitioner must satisfy the two-pronged test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The petitioner must show: (1) that counsel's performance was deficient; and (2) that the petitioner was prejudiced by the deficient performance. The Supreme Court in Strickland recognized that this test presents a mixed question of law and fact. 466 U.S. at 698, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
State v. Pitsch, 124 Wis. 2d 628, 633-34, 369 N.W.2d 711, 714-15 (1985).
"When we review a circuit court's resolution of a Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984),] claim, as we do here, we apply a mixed standard of review because both the performance and the prejudice prongs of the Strickland test present mixed questions of law and fact." Sochor v. State, 883 So. 2d 766, 771-72 (Fla. 2004). "A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact: we accept the trial court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous, but we independently apply the legal principles to the facts." Franks v. State, 278 Ga. 246, 250, 599 S.E.2d 134, 140 (2004). "On [an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel] claim we examine the record for supporting facts and apply those facts de novo to determine whether they demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel." State v. Stephens, 46 Kan. App. 2d 853, 855, 265 P.3d 574, 576 (2011).
"Counsel's competence ... is presumed, ... and the defendant must rebut this presumption by proving that his attorney's representation was unreasonable under prevailing professional norms and that the challenged action was not sound strategy." Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 384, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stanley v. State
...is deficient performance plusPage 100 prejudice." Malone v. State, 168 P.3d 185, 234-35 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).'"State v. Gissendanner, 288 So. 3d 923, 965 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015). '[C]ounsel does not necessarily render ineffective assistance simply because he does not present all possible ......
-
Harris v. State
...is deficient performance plus prejudice.' Malone v. State, 168 P.3d 185, 234-35 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007)."" 'State v. Gissendanner, 288 So. 3d 923, 965 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015). "[C]ounsel does not necessarily render ineffective assistance simply because he does not present all possible mitiga......
-
State v. M.D.D.
...refused to allow the omission of cumulative testimony to amount to ineffective assistance of counsel."' State v. Gissendanner, [288 So. 3d 923, 951] (Ala. Crim. App. 2015) (quoting United States v. Harris, 408 F.3d 186, 191 (5th Cir. 2005)). '[A] petitioner cannot satisfy the prejudice pron......
-
State v. Gissendanner (Ex parte Gissendanner)
...on application for rehearing, the Court of Criminal Appeals withdrew its original opinion and substituted another. State v. Gissendanner, 288 So.3d 923 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015). Judge Welch authored the opinion, in which Judge Kellum concurred. Retired Associate Justice Champ Lyons, Jr., was ......