Walker v. State
Decision Date | 01 October 2004 |
Docket Number | CR-03-0226. |
Citation | 932 So.2d 140 |
Parties | James Earl WALKER v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Charles David Decker, Dothan, for appellant.
Troy King, atty. gen., and Stephen Shows, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, James Earl Walker, was convicted of capital murder for the killing of Bessie Lee Thweatt. The murder was made capital because the appellant committed it during the course of a first-degree burglary. See § 13A-5-40(a)(4), Ala.Code 1975. The jury unanimously recommended that he be sentenced to death. The trial court accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced the appellant to death. The appellant filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied after conducting a hearing. This appeal followed.
The appellant raises some arguments on appeal that he did not raise at trial. Although the lack of an objection at trial will not bar our review of an issue in a case that involves the death penalty, it will weigh against any claim of prejudice the appellant may raise. See Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.1985). Rule 45A, Ala. R.App. P., provides:
"In all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review... whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant."
"[This] plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be `used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.'" United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1046, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 1592 n. 14, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982)).
Because the appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, a lengthy recitation of the facts is not necessary. However, we have reviewed the evidence, and we have determined that it is sufficient to support the appellant's conviction. The following summary of the relevant facts, which the trial court prepared, may be helpful to an understanding of this case:
(C.R. 349-51) (footnote omitted).
The appellant's first argument is that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss or remand the indictment because it allegedly was defective. Citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), he specifically contends that the indictment was defective because it did not set forth the aggravating circumstances upon which the State intended to rely. We addressed and rejected a similar argument in Stallworth v. State, 868 So.2d 1128, 1186 (Ala. Crim.App.2001), as follows:
(Footnote omitted.) Accordingly, the appellant's argument is without merit.
The appellant's second argument is that the trial court erred in refusing to require the jury to return specific findings as to which aggravating circumstance or circumstances it found to exist. We addressed and rejected a similar argument in Adams v. State, [Ms. CR-98-0496, August 29, 2003] ___ So.2d ___, ___ (Ala.Crim. App.2003), as follows:
Therefore, the trial court did not err when it refused to require the jury to return specific findings as to which aggravating circumstance or circumstances it found to exist. Accordingly, the appellant's argument is without merit.
(Appellant's brief at pp. 22-23.)
In Ex parte Waldrop, 859 So.2d 1181, 1187-88 (Ala.2002), the Alabama Supreme Court explained:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. State
...disproportionate nor excessive when compared to penalties imposed in similar cases. See Beckworth v. State, supra; Walker v. State, 932 So.2d 140 (Ala.Crim.App.2004); Neal v. State, 731 So.2d 609 (Ala.Crim. App.1997), aff'd 731 So.2d 621 (Ala.1999); Thomas v. State, 539 So.2d 375 (Ala.Crim.......
-
Beckworth v. State
...for his participation in the burglary-murder. This Court affirmed his conviction and death sentence on appeal. Walker v. State, 932 So.2d 140 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). 2. The parties agreed to continue the proceedings on the motion for new trial past the 60th day following pronouncement of sente......
-
Ingram v. State
...Barber v. State, 952 So.2d 393 (Ala.Crim.App.2005); Flowers v. State, 922 So.2d 938 (Ala.Crim.App.2005); Walker v. State, 932 So.2d 140 (Ala.Crim.App.2004); Knight v. State, 907 So.2d 470 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). Ingram was correctly denied relief because the claim had no legal merit.V. Ingram ......
-
Blackmon v. State
...2005); Pilley v. State, 930 So.2d 550 (Ala. Crim.App.2005); Flowers v. State, 922 So.2d 938 (Ala.Crim.App.2005); Walker v. State, 932 So.2d 140 (Ala.Crim.App.2004); Jones v. State, 853 So.2d 1036 (Ala.Crim. Blackmon first argues that the holding in Apprendi renders Alabama's death-penalty s......