Taylor v. State
Decision Date | 27 August 2004 |
Docket Number | CR-02-0706. |
Citation | 10 So.3d 1037 |
Parties | Michael Shannon TAYLOR v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Mitchell J. Briskey, New York, New York; Robert Chandler Davis, Gadsden; and Lorca Morello, Brooklyn, New York, for appellant.
William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen., and Margaret Mary (Missy) Fullmer, deputy atty. gen., for appellee.
On April 14, 1993, the appellant, Michael Shannon Taylor, was convicted of three counts of capital murder for the killings of Ivan Moore and Lucille Moore. Two of the counts were made capital because he committed the murders during the course of a robbery, see § 13A-5-40(a)(2), Ala. Code 1975, and the third was made capital because he murdered two or more people pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, see § 13A-5-40(a)(10), Ala.Code 1975. On April 14, 1993, the jury unanimously recommended that he be sentenced to death. On May 5, 1993, the trial court accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced him to death. We affirmed his convictions, see Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), and sentence, see Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 71 (Ala.Crim. App.1994); the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentence, see Ex parte Taylor, 666 So.2d 73 (Ala.1995); and the United States Supreme Court denied his petition for certiorari review, see Taylor v. Alabama, 516 U.S. 1120, 116 S.Ct. 928, 133 L.Ed.2d 856 (1996). This court issued a certificate of judgment on August 8, 1995.
On March 3, 1997, the appellant filed a Rule 32 petition, challenging his convictions and sentence, and he amended his petition on November 20, 1998, and July 13, 1999. The circuit court dismissed some of the claims as procedurally barred, conducted an evidentiary hearing on the remaining claims, and subsequently denied the petition. This appeal followed.
On direct appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court set forth the relevant facts of this case as follows:
Ex parte Taylor, 666 So.2d at 75-76.
The appellant raises several arguments, including claims that his attorneys rendered ineffective assistance during the proceedings. In reviewing the circuit court's rulings on the appellant's arguments, we apply the following principles:
Brownlee v. State, 666 So.2d 91, 93 (Ala. Crim.App.1995).
Hallford v. State, 629 So.2d 6, 8-9 (Ala. Crim.App.1992).
Thomas v. State, 511 So.2d 248, 255 (Ala. Crim.App.1987) (footnote omitted).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jackson v. State
... ... She asked the jury to spare her son's life. Lewis Wendell Taylor, Jackson's father, testified that, after Jackson was born, he and Marilyn stayed together and tried to provide a decent home for Jackson, that he was not around a lot because, he said, he was always working, that Jackson was intelligent, that he got involved with the wrong group of people, and that ... ...
-
Jackson v. State
... ... She asked the jury to spare her son's life. Lewis Wendell Taylor, Jackson's father, testified that, after Jackson was born, he and Marilyn stayed together and tried to provide a decent home for Jackson, that he was not around a lot because, he said, he was always working, that Jackson was intelligent, that he got involved with the wrong group of people, and that ... ...
-
Smith v. State
... ... Washington. However, the cases relied on by the circuit court Woods v. State, 957 So.2d 492 (Ala.Crim.App.2004), and Taylor v. State, 10 So.3d 1037 (Ala.Crim.App.2004)were subsequently overruled and reversed, respectively, by the Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Taylor, 10 So.3d 1075 (Ala.2005). In Taylor, the Supreme Court held: [a]lthough it may be the rare case in which the application of the plain-error test ... ...
-
Taylor v. Culliver
... MICHAEL SHANNON TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. GRANTT CULLIVER, Superintendent, Holman Correctional Facility, and; TROY KING, Attorney General of the State of Alabama, Respondents. Case No. 4:09-cv-00251-KOB-TMP UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION Dated: September 26, 2012 MEMORANDUM OPINION This action seeks habeas corpus relief with respect to Petitioner Michael Shannon Taylor's ("Taylor" or ... ...