Wilkerson v. State
Decision Date | 16 November 2018 |
Docket Number | CR-17-0082 |
Citation | 284 So.3d 937 |
Parties | Nicholas WILKERSON v. STATE of Alabama |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Alabama Supreme Court 1180332
J.D. Lloyd, Birmingham, for appellant.
Steve Marshall, atty. gen., and Robin D. Scales, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
In 1992, when he was 17, Nicholas Wilkerson murdered William Wesson during the course of a robbery. In 1994, Wilkerson was convicted of capital murder, see § 13A-5-40(a)(2), Ala. Code 1975. Following a resentencing hearing pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), the circuit court sentenced Wilkerson to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. We affirm.
Following Wilkerson's conviction for capital murder in 1994, see § 13A-5-40(a)(2), Ala. Code 1975,1 the State and Wilkerson, with the approval of the circuit court, waived the right to a sentencing hearing before a jury, see § 13A-5-44(c), Ala. Code 1975, and the circuit court sentenced Wilkerson to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.2 This Court affirmed Wilkerson's conviction and sentence. See Wilkerson v. State, 686 So.2d 1266 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996).3 The Alabama Supreme Court denied Wilkerson's petition for certiorari on November 22, 1996.
On June 13, 2013, Wilkerson filed his first Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition. Wilkerson alleged in that petition that, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), his life-imprisonment-without-parole sentence was "unconstitutional in violation of his rights protected by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Alabama Constitution, and Alabama law," and he argued that he was entitled to be resentenced. (C. 8.)
On July 9, 2013, the State filed a motion to dismiss Wilkerson's petition. The State argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Miller was not retroactive and that Wilkerson's claim could have been, but was not, raised at trial or on direct appeal, pursuant to Rules 32.2(a)(3) and (a)(5), Ala. R. Crim. P.
In December 2014, the circuit court, pursuant to a joint motion, stayed the proceedings on Wilkerson's petition because the United States Supreme Court had granted certiorari in Toca v. Louisiana, 574 U.S. 1058, 135 S.Ct. 781, 190 L.Ed.2d 649 (2014), to consider whether Miller applied retroactively. The United States Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016), another case involving the same question.
In Montgomery, the United States Supreme Court held that its decision in Miller applied retroactively, and on February 1, 2016, the State and Wilkerson filed a joint motion notifying the circuit court of the decision in Montgomery. In light of the holding in Montgomery, both parties agreed that Wilkerson was entitled to the postconviction relief of a new sentencing hearing. On March 9, 2016, the circuit court granted Wilkerson's Rule 32 petition and scheduled a new sentencing hearing.
Before the sentencing hearing, the State filed a memorandum that included the following summary of the facts underlying Wilkerson's convictions:
(C. 106-07.)
In its memorandum, the State urged the circuit court to impose on Wilkerson a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. According to the State, Wilkerson was not entitled to receive a sentence allowing for parole because, the State said, Wilkerson could not establish "that his crimes were the result of the ‘ "transient immaturity of youth" ’ and not ‘ "irreparable corruption." ’ " (C. 108 ( ).)
On August 15, 2017, the circuit court held a new sentencing hearing pursuant to Miller. The circuit court granted the State's motion to incorporate all testimony, exhibits, and other evidence submitted during the guilt phase of Wilkerson's trial. The State also presented testimony from three of Wesson's daughters regarding the impact Wesson's death had had on their family, and the State offered into evidence Wilkerson's disciplinary records from the Alabama Department of Corrections. Those records showed 65 alleged infractions including fighting, stealing, possessing weapons, possessing drugs (including cocaine) and alcohol, possessing cellular telephones, threatening to start a riot, and stabbing an inmate in the head and ear.
After the State rested, the circuit...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Raines v. State
...a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender in order to comply with the Eighth Amendment."). Cf. Wilkerson v. State , 284 So.3d 937, 951-955 (Ala. Crim. App. 2018) (extensively citing and quoting from Skinner , including for the proposition that "whether a juvenile who has been co......
-
Bracewell v. State
...that the offense reflects irreparable corruption on the part of the juvenile.’ " ’ " 329 So. 3d at 35 (quoting Wilkerson v. State, 284 So. 3d 937, 955 (Ala. Crim. App. 2018), quoting in turn People v. Skinner, 502 Mich. 89, 126, 917 N.W.2d 292, 311 (2018), which quoted State v. Ramos, 187 W......
-
White v. State
...... Miller does not require trial courts to make a finding of fact regarding a child’s incorrigibility."); Wilkerson v. State , 284 So.3d 937, 954–56, (Ala. Crim. App. Nov. 16, 2018) (relying on Skinner ). And we note that the United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari on the questi......
-
Thrasher v. State
...abuse-of-discretion." Id. at 54.However, on the same day Thrasher filed his brief, this Court issued its decision in Wilkerson v. State, 284 So.3d 937 (Ala. Crim. App. 2018), in which it addressed and rejected the three "framework" arguments Thrasher raises.4 Specifically, it held that " Mi......