West v. Allen

• Decision Date: 26 April 2011
• Docket Number: Case No. 4:08–cv–01576–IPJ–RRA.
• Citation: 868 F.Supp.2d 1224
• Parties: Geoffrey Todd WEST, Petitioner, v. Richard ALLEN, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections; et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

868 F.Supp.2d 1224

Geoffrey Todd WEST, Petitioner,

v.Richard ALLEN, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections; et al., Respondents.

Case No. 4:08–cv–01576–IPJ–RRA.

United States District Court,

N.D. Alabama,

Middle Division.

April 26, 2011.

Charles H. Pullen, Huntsville, AL, for Petitioner.

Kevin W. Blackburn, Office of the Attorney General, Montgomery, AL, for Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

INGE PRYTZ JOHNSON, District Judge.

This action seeks habeas corpus relief with respect to Petitioner Geoffrey Todd West's (“West” or “Petitioner”) state court conviction and death sentence on a charge of capital murder. See28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006). All of the claims have been briefed to the Court, and the petition is ready for adjudication.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Offense

The following summary of the evidence relevant to the offense is taken from the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion on direct appeal. West v. State, 793 So.2d 870, 873 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). To the extent the appellate court relies upon the trial court's findings of fact, these findings are taken directly from the trial court's sentencing order, which the trial judge entitled “Judgment of the Court.” (C.R. Vol. 21, Tab. 62, p. 1).¹

In its sentencing order, the trial court summarized the relevant facts of this case as follows:

In the late hours of March 27, 1997, or early morning of March 28, 1997, Geoffrey Todd West and his girlfriend drove to Harold's Chevron located at 2920 Noccalula Parkway. The Defendant had previously been employed at this convenience store. The Defendant previously had expressed to others his intention to rob the Chevron Store and to “leave no witnesses,” “kill the person up there.”

West entered the store armed with a .45 caliber handgun and the circumstances indicate that he held the attendant Berry at gunpoint and took $250.00 from a cookie can where the store money was kept. The medical evidence indicates that Berry was shot in the back of the head while lying prone on the floor behind the counter of the store. According to the medical examiner, the “wound would cause rapid incapacitation and a very rapid death.”

West v. State, 793 So.2d 870, 873 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (quoting C.R. Vol. 21, Tab. 62, p. 1); ( see also Rule 32 C.R. Vol. 21, Tab. 73, p. 2 (same)).

B. The Sentence

After the formal sentencing hearing, the trial court found the existence of two statutory aggravating circumstances and two statutory mitigating circumstances.²See West v. State, 793 So.2d 870, 887–88 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (citing C.R. Vol. 21, Tab 64, pp. 1–3). As to the statutory aggravating factors, the trial court found:

(1) That the capital offense was committed by Geoffrey Todd West while he was under a sentence of imprisonment an aggravating circumstance described in § 13A–5–49(1), Ala.Code 1975.

....

(4) That the capital offense was committed while the Defendant was engaged in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempt to commit a robbery as described in § 13A–5–49(4), Ala.Code 1975.

(C.R. Vol. 21, Tab. 64, pp. 1–2). In regards to the statutory mitigating factors, the trial court found:

(9) That the Defendant had no significant history of prior criminal activity as described in § 13A–5–51(1), Ala.Code 1975 which was a mitigating circumstance the Court considered in sentencing.

...

(15) That the Court specifically finds that the age of the Defendant at the time of the crime of 23 years was a mitigating circumstance which the Court considered in sentencing as described in § 13A–5–51(7), Ala.Code.

Id. at 2. “After considering all findings as listed above” as well as “the aspects of Defendant's character and record presentedby the evidence and sentence report as required by § 13A–5–52, Ala.Code,” the trial court held that “the aggravating circumstances ... are sufficient to support the sentence of death.” Id. at 2–3. And the court concluded by holding that “[i]t is further the opinion of the Court that the mitigating circumstances above enumerated are insufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances.” Id. at 3.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

At 2:35 p.m. on June 1, 1999, West was found guilty of capital murder during the course of a robbery in violation of Alabama Code § 13A–5–40(a)(2) (1975). ( See R. Vol. 11, Tab. 19, pp. 1771–72). A penalty hearing immediately followed, and, at 5:03 p.m. that same day, the jury recommended that West be sentenced to death by a vote of 10–2. ( See R. Vol. 12, Tab. 27, pp. 1802–03). A formal sentencing hearing, as required by Alabama Code § 13 A. –5–47, was conducted on July 7, 1999, and the trial court judge followed the recommendation of the jury and sentenced West to death. ( See R. Vol. 12, Tab. 29, p. 1813). An automatic appeal followed.

West appealed his conviction and sentence to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals who entered a published opinion “affirm[ing West's] conviction, but remand[ing] the case to the trial court with instructions that the trial court enter a new sentencing order that complies with the requirements of § 13A–5–47(d), Ala.Code 1975” on June 30, 2000.³See West v. State, 793 So.2d 870, 887 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). After the trial court amended West's sentencing order, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed West's sentence of death on August 25, 2000. Id. at 888. The Supreme Court of Alabama denied West's petition for writ of certiorari without an opinion on February 23, 2001.⁴See Ex parte West, No. 1000231 (Ala. Feb. 23, 2001) (Lyons, J.). And the United States Supreme Court denied West's petition for writ of certiorari on October 1, 2001. See West v. Alabama, 534 U.S. 849, 122 S.Ct. 116, 151 L.Ed.2d 72 (2001).

West thereafter filed a petition for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure on September 6, 2002. (Rule 32 C.R. Vol. 16, Tab. 40). On October 21, 2002, the State filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that West's Rule 32 petition was barred by the statute of limitations set forth in Rule 32.2(c) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Rule 32 C.R. Vol. 16, Tab. 41, pp. 44–52). The circuit court granted the State's Motion to Dismiss and summarily dismissed West's Rule 32 petition as untimely on March 12, 2003. (Rule 32 C.R. Vol. 16, p. 90). The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of West's Rule 32 petition on September 26, 2003. West v. State, 890 So.2d 205 (Ala.Civ.App.2003). On November 21, 2003, the Court of Criminal Appeals overruled West's application for rehearing. (Rule 32 C.R. Vol. 17, p. 16).

West subsequently petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for certiorari review. On March 5, 2004, the Alabama Supreme Court summarily granted the writ and “suspend[ed] the provisions of Rule 39(g) and (h), Ala. R.App. P., allowing [West] to file a brief.” Ex parte West, 890 So.2d 210 (Ala.2004). After finding that West's Rule 32 petition was timely filed, the Alabama Supreme Court remanded the case to be considered in the first instance by the circuit court. See id. at 211.

On March 29, 2004, the State filed an Answer as well as a motion for summary dismissal pursuant to Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.7(d), a motion for West to amend certain claims that were insufficiently pleaded under Rules 32.3 and 32.6(b), and a motion for summary dismissal pursuant to Rule 32.2(a). (Rule 32 C.R. Vol. 17, Tabs. 44–47, pp. 17–47). On December 28, 2004, the Rule 32 circuit court granted the State's motion for summary dismissal pursuant to Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 32.2(a), and thereby summarily dismissed three claims in West's Rule 32 petition as procedurally barred.⁵ (Rule 32 C.R. Vol. 17, pp. 67–68). Following an evidentiary hearing as to the remaining issues, (Rule 32 R. Vol. 17–18, Tab. 49), the circuit court denied West's Rule 32 petition on November 10, 2005. (Rule 32 C.R. Vol. 21, Tab. 72, pp. 94–127).

On December 21, 2005, West filed a Notice of Appeal. (Rule 32 C.R. Vol. 17, p. 128). The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the circuit court's decision in an unpublished opinion on July 22, 2007. (Rule 32 C.R. Vol. 21, Tab. 73). The Supreme Court of Alabama denied certiorari review on August 15, 2008. (Rule 32 C.R. Vol. 21, Tab. 74). Shortly thereafter, on August 29, 2008, West filed his present Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition” or “Habeas Petition”) in this Court.

THE SCOPE OF FEDERAL HABEAS REVIEW

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (2006), a federal district court is prohibited from entertaining a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court” unless the petitioner alleges “he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” In other words, this Court's review of habeas claims is limited to federal constitutional questions. Claims pertainingsolely to “an alleged defect in a [state] collateral proceeding” or to a “state's interpretation of its own laws or rules” does not provide a basis for federal habeas corpus relief under section 2254. Alston v. Dep't of Corr., Fla., 610 F.3d 1318, 1325–26 (11th Cir.2010) (citations omitted). Accordingly, unless otherwise expressly stated, use of the word “claim” in this opinion presupposes a claim of federal constitutional proportion.

A. Exhaustion and Procedural Default

Prior to seeking relief in federal court from a state court conviction and sentence, a habeas petitioner is first required to present his federal claims to the state court by exhausting all of the state's available procedures. See28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1) (2006). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that state courts are afforded the first opportunity to correct federal questions affecting the validity of state court convictions. As explained by the Eleventh Circuit:

In general, a federal court may not grant habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner who has not exhausted his available state remedies. 28...