Thompson v. Nagle

• Decision Date: 30 July 1997
• Docket Number: No. 96-6752,96-6752
• Citation: 118 F.3d 1442
• Parties: 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 275 Steven A. THOMPSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John Eddy NAGLE, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 1442

118 F.3d 1442

11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 275

Steven A. THOMPSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John Eddy NAGLE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 96-6752.

United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit.

July 30, 1997.

M. Duncan Grant, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, Philadelphia, PA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Beth Jackson Hughes, Assistant Attorney General, Montgomery, AL, for Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Before HATCHETT, Chief Judge, and DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

DUBINA, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Steven Allen Thompson ("Thompson" or "defendant") appeals the district court's judgment denying his petition for habeas corpus relief from his convictions and sentence of death. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. FACTS

The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals repeated the facts as stated by the trial judge in his sentencing order.

The victim, Robin Balarzs, was engaged to marry David Roberts, a long-time friend of the defendant. On May 11, 1984, David Roberts was absent from Huntsville due to military service. Defendant was aware of this absence. On that day defendant went to the home in Huntsville where Robin Balarz [sic] resided with her parents and her young child. The parents and the child were also out of town. Robin and her friend Cindy McElroy were at the residence. Defendant, Robin and Cindy engaged in normal conversation and defendant slept on a sofa while the girls retired to separate bedrooms. Early on the morning of May 12th defendant left the residence. Cindy McElroy left at a later time. Cindy noticed no unusual behavior on the part of the defendant.

Defendant was absent without leave from the Navy and had need for money and goods which he could convert to cash. He planned to return to the Balarzs household to feloniously take money, gold or silver. In his planning defendant bought tape, bandages and other items with which to bind Robin. On his arrival in the night of May 12, 1984, defendant entered the household on invitation of his friend and followed a course of conduct which can be described as beyond human comprehension in its vileness. Defendant bound and gagged Robin with a sock, bandage, rope and tape he had brought into her home with premeditated design. He cut her clothes from her person and beat her with his fists. He took a meager $1.00 bill from her purse (although at some point he also took her engagement ring). He stuffed a sock in her mouth. He cut her with a knife. He positioned his rental vehicle near the garage to facilitate her removal from the residence. He made some effort to conceal the blood and physical tracings of his acts of brutality, placed Robin, still alive, in the vehicle, left the home and drove to secluded Green Mountain, a rugged area in Huntsville, Madison County. There, he proceeded to brutalize Robin Balarzs in a manner almost unspeakable in its nature, character and extent. Defendant had sexual intercourse upon her, shoved a large knife into what he thought to be her vagina, bound her breasts with a rope, tied her to the vehicle and dragged her through mud, over rocks and on pavement for a distance in excess of 3000 feet. At some point he pulled and shaved her hair with a razor especially purchased. He stabbed her about her breasts and cut her with the knife.

Robin Balarzs died during her ordeal. Some of the atrocities were against her corpse.

The defendant realized that left in the Balarzs home were items which would reveal his crimes, if not his identity. He returned to the residence for the purpose of securing these items, leaving Robin Balarzs on Green Mountain.

While defendant was attempting to re-enter the Balarzs home David Roberts returned. Seeing David drive up to the residence, defendant evaded detection and drove away to spend the rest of the night in his vehicle.

David Roberts entered the home and noticed signs of the defendant's depravity. He contacted neighbors and friends of Robin, called hospitals and tried to locate her. Finally, David Roberts called Huntsville Police Department and investigation into the case began. David recalled seeing defendant's vehicle parked near the residence and an alert was dispatched on defendant by radio. At that time it was in connection with a missing person report. In the early morning of May 13, 1984, two uniformed officers saw defendant in his vehicle and stopped him. Defendant's vehicle was dirty and damaged and defendant had what appeared to be blood and mud about his person. Defendant was properly advised of his constitutional rights, taken into custody, removed to police headquarters and questioned. After first denying knowledge of the fate of Robin Balarzs, defendant made statements admitting his activities and led an officer to the scene atop Green Mountain. Robin's battered body was found. Her parents and David Roberts were advised that she was dead.

Thompson v. State, 542 So.2d 1286, 1288-89 (Ala.Crim.App.1988).

After his arrest, Thompson made two statements to police. On the day of his arrest, Thompson described the events that occurred at Balarzs' house. Ex.-1, Vol. V at 920-21. He also described dragging Balarzs to his car, putting her in the backseat, placing a sleeping bag over her, and driving her to Green Mountain. Thompson told the police that Balarzs "moaned and groaned" during the drive to Green Mountain. Id. at 922. The next morning, Thompson gave police another statement. Id. at 949. Thompson described in more detail the events at Balarzs' home. Id. at 952-54. Thompson told police that Balarzs was bleeding and vomit was coming out of her mouth when he took her out of the car on Green Mountain. Id. at 954. Thompson told police he had sexual intercourse with Balarzs and then described thrusting a butcher knife into her vaginal area, tying her to his car, and dragging her body. Id. at 955.

B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 9, 1985, a jury convicted Thompson of (1) robbery-murder under ALA.CODE § 13A-5-40(a)(2) (1975), (2) kidnapping-murder under ALA.CODE § 13A-5-40(a)(1) (1975), and (3) rape-murder under ALA.CODE § 13A-5-40(a)(3) (1975). By an eight to four vote, the jury recommended a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The trial court held a sentencing hearing. After reviewing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the trial court overrode the jury's recommendation and sentenced Thompson to death by electrocution.

The Alabama courts affirmed Thompson's convictions and sentence on direct appeal. See Thompson v. State, 542 So.2d 1286 (Ala.Crim.App.1988), aff'd, 542 So.2d 1300 (Ala.1989). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari and Thompson's petition for rehearing. Thompson v. Alabama, 493 U.S. 874, 110 S.Ct. 208, 107 L.Ed.2d 161 (1989); Thompson v. Alabama, 493 U.S. 986, 110 S.Ct. 528, 107 L.Ed.2d 527 (1989).

Thompson then filed a petition for post-conviction relief under Temporary Rule 20 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure in the Circuit Court of Madison County. ¹ The court held an evidentiary hearing on Thompson's petition. The trial court denied the petition and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Thompson v. State, 615 So.2d 129 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). The Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari, Thompson v. State, No. 1920696 (March 19, 1993), as did the United States Supreme Court. Thompson v. Alabama, 510 U.S. 976, 114 S.Ct. 467, 126 L.Ed.2d 418 (1993).

Thompson then filed the present habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. A magistrate judge entered a 74-page report and recommendation that the district court deny the petition. The district court adopted the magistrate's report and denied Thompson's habeas corpus petition.

The district court denied Thompson's motion for a certificate of appealability but this court granted it. We then heard oral argument.

II. ISSUES

A. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Thompson's rape conviction.

B. Whether the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.

C. Whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Thompson formed the specific intent to kill Balarzs.

D. Whether trial counsel were ineffective.

1. Whether trial counsel's failure to show that no rape occurred constitutes ineffectiveness.

2. Whether trial counsel's failure to show that Thompson did not intend to kill constitutes ineffectiveness.

3. Whether trial counsel's failure to present a mental health defense constitutes ineffectiveness.

4. Whether trial counsel's failure to prevent the introduction of inadmissible evidence constitutes ineffectiveness.

5. Whether trial counsel's failure to call character witnesses constitutes ineffectiveness.

E. Whether a prejudicial variance existed between the evidence and the indictment.

III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

We review the district court's findings of fact for clear error, even when the district court's findings are drawn solely from documents, records, or inferences from other facts. Medina v. Singletary, 59 F.3d 1095, 1101 (11th Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 2505, 135 L.Ed.2d 195 (1996); Spaziano v. Singletary, 36 F.3d 1028, 1032 (11th Cir.1994). Whether the evidence was sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed each element of the crime charged is subject to plenary review. Huynh v. King, 95 F.3d 1052, 1059 (11th Cir.1996). We also review de novo the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals' determination that its construction of Alabama's rape laws during Thompson's appeal does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368, 103 S.Ct. 673, 679, 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983). We review Thompson's ineffective assistance of counsel claims de novo. Weeks v. Jones, 26 F.3d 1030, 1034 (11th Cir.1994). Finally, whether there was an unconstitutional variance between the indictment...