Whitson v. State
Decision Date | 26 October 2012 |
Docket Number | CR–11–0887. |
Citation | 109 So.3d 665 |
Parties | Isaim Roshune WHITSON v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Isaim Roshune Whitson, pro se.
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and Michael G. Dean, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
Isaim Roshune Whitson appeals the circuit court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., in which he attacked his 2009 convictions for three counts of capital murder and his resulting sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This Court affirmed Whitson's convictions and sentence on appeal in an unpublished memorandum issued on August 13, 2010. Whitson v. State, (No. CR–08–1399) 84 So.3d 1016 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (table).1 The Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari review, and this Court issued a certificate of judgment on November 19, 2010.
Whitson's convictions arose from the shooting deaths of Brandon Bennett and Kendrick Elston while they were sitting in a vehicle in the parking lot of a nightclub called “Bootsie's.” Several eyewitnesses to the shooting testified for the State that Whitson was the shooter. Whitson's defense was that he did not commit the crimes. He attacked the State's evidence, questioned the credibility of the State's witnesses, and asserted that reasonable doubt existed as to his identity as the shooter.2 He presented two witnesses on his behalf, also eyewitnesses to the shooting, neither of whom could identify the shooter, but both of whom contradicted some of the details of the shooting provided by the State's eyewitnesses. In our unpublished memorandum affirming Whitson's convictions and sentence, this Court set out the pertinent testimony at trial as follows:
Following his sentencing hearing on May 14, 2009, Whitson's trial counsel withdrew from representing him, and new counsel, Jonathon L. Adams, was appointed to represent Whitson on appeal. Adams filed a timely motion for a new trial alleging, among other things, that Whitson's trial counsel had been ineffective. After several continuances by agreement of the parties, the trial court held a hearing on the motion on January 28, 2010. Following the hearing, the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, this Court initially remanded the case by order for the trial court to make specific written findings of fact regarding each of Whitson's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The trial court complied with this Court's instructions and, as noted above, this Court then affirmed Whitson's convictions and sentence.
Whitson filed this, his first, Rule 32 petition on November 17, 2011. In his petition, Whitson alleged that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising in the motion for a new trial and then on appeal three additional claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The State filed an answer and a motion to dismiss Whitson's petition on December 13, 2011, arguing that Whitson's claims were insufficiently pleaded and were meritless. The circuit court appointed counsel to represent Whitson and scheduled an evidentiary hearing for February 16, 2012. Following the hearing, the circuit court issued an order denying Whitson's petition, finding, among other things, that Whitson had failed to satisfy his burden of proof as to his claims and that his claims were meritless.3
On appeal, Whitson reasserts all three claims from his petition and argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying him relief.
Boyd v. State, 913 So.2d 1113, 1122 (Ala.Crim.App.2003).
“The burden of proof in a Rule 32 proceeding rests solely with the petitioner, not the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lewis v. State
... ... The Court finds that counsel is not ineffective for not introducing letters they have no recollection of receiving." (Record on Return to Remand C. 13.) Lewis offered no evidence that the letters existed other Page 60 than his own self-serving testimony and letters that Lewis wrote. In Whitson v. State , 109 So. 3d 665, 675-76 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012), this Court stated: "'Courts have viewed claims of ineffective assistance of counsel with great caution when the only evidence of a missing witness's testimony is from the defendant. See, e.g., Schwander v. Blackburn , 750 F.2d 494, 500 (5th ... ...
-
Lewis v. State
... ... The Court finds that counsel is not ineffective for not introducing letters they have no recollection of receiving." (Record on Return to Remand C. 13.) Lewis offered no evidence that the letters existed other than his own self-serving testimony and letters that Lewis wrote. In Whitson v. State , 109 So. 3d 665, 675-76 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012), this Court stated: " Courts have viewed claims of ineffective assistance of counsel with great caution when the only evidence of a missing witness's testimony is from the defendant. See, e.g., Schwander v. Blackburn , 750 F.2d 494, 500 (5th ... ...
-
Brooks v. State
... ... on specific actions, or inactions, of counsel that occurred outside the record[, and holding that] circuit court correctly found that Broadnax, by failing to question his attorneys about this specific claim, failed to overcome the presumption 340 So.3d 440 that counsel acted reasonably); Whitson v. State , 109 So. 3d 665, 676 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012) (holding that a petitioner failed to meet his burden of overcoming the presumption that counsel were effective because the petitioner failed to question appellate counsel regarding their reasoning); Brooks v. State , 929 So. 2d 491, 497 (Ala ... ...
-
Deardorff v. Bolling
...Drs. Cunningham and DeFilippis, the Navy records, and family interviews would have changed their strategy or not. See Whitson v. State, 109 So.3d 665 (Ala.Crim.App.2012) (Rule 32 petitioner failed to prove that appellate counsel was ineffective where, although petitioner called appellate co......