Thompson v. State
Decision Date | 07 February 2020 |
Docket Number | CR-16-1311 |
Parties | Devin Darnell Thompson v. State of Alabama |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
Appeal from Fayette Circuit Court
(CC-03-62.60)
On Application for Rehearing
In 2005, Devin Darnell Thompson was convicted of six counts of capital murder for "murdering Fayette Police Officers Arnold Strickland and James Crump and police dispatcher Leslie 'Ace' Mealer during the course of a robbery," and he was sentenced to death. This Court affirmed Thompson's convictions and death sentence on direct appeal. See Thompson v. State, 153 So. 3d 84, 101 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012) ("Thompson I"). Both the Alabama Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court denied him certiorari review, see Thompson v. State, 153 So. 3d 191 (Ala. 2014), Thompson v. Alabama, 574 U.S. 894, 135 S. Ct. 233, 190 L. Ed. 2d 175 (2014).
In April 2015, Thompson filed a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief, which the circuit court summarily dismissed in July 2017. Thompson appealed, and, on November 16, 2018, this Court unanimously affirmed the circuit court's decision. Thompson v. State, [Ms. CR-16-1311, Nov. 16, 2018] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2018) (Thompson II").
On December 17, 2018, Thompson filed an application for rehearing. In his application, Thompson argues that this Court should reconsider all aspects of its decision affirming the circuit court's summary dismissal of his Rule 32 petition. Thompson also claims that this Court either "overlooked" or"misapprehended" certain facts or authorities as to every claim he raised on appeal.
SeeTown of Pike Road v. City of Montgomery, (Ala. 2006) (opinion on application for rehearing) ; Riscorp, Inc. v. Norman, 915 So. 2d 1142, 1155 (Ala. 2005) (opinion on application for rehearing) ; and Kirkland v. Kirkland, 281 Ala. 42, 49, 198 So. 2d 771, 777 (1967) ('We cannot sanction the practice of bringing up new questions for the first time in application for rehearing.').
Chism v. Jefferson Cty., 954 So. 2d 1058, 1106-07 (Ala. 2006) (See, J., concurring specially) ( ).
Here, although Thompson uses the words "overlooked" and "misapprehended" throughout his application for rehearing, Thompson's application consists mostly of arguments expressing his disagreement with how this Court resolved the issues he raised on appeal. Thompson does, however, point out two arguments that he raised on appeal that were not specifically addressed by this Court on original submission.
First, Thompson correctly points out that this Court did not address his argument on appeal that his counsel was ineffective "in withdrawing the [jury] instruction on 'Failure of Defendant to Testify.'" (Thompson's brief, p. 66; Thompson's application, pp. 49-50.) Although this Court throughly examined and rejected Thompson's argument on appeal concerning his counsel's effectiveness as to certain jury instructions, this Court did not address the argument raised by Thompson as to his counsel's effectiveness for moving to withdraw a jury instruction on the failure of the defendant to testify.
The totality of Thompson's argument as to that issue on appeal was as follows:
(Thompson's brief, pp. 66-67.) Thompson's argument, as presented on appeal, fails to satisfy Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R. App. P.; thus, he has waived it. See Morris v. State, 261 So. 3d 1181, 1198-99 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial