Wilkerson v. State
Decision Date | 25 March 2011 |
Docket Number | CR–08–1779. |
Citation | 70 So.3d 442 |
Parties | Bruce Antonio WILKERSONv.STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Stephen A. Strickland, Birmingham, for appellant.Troy King, atty. gen., and Robin Denise Scales, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
On Return to Remand *
Bruce Antonio Wilkerson appeals the circuit court's denial of his Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief, in which he attacked his 2004 conviction for murder made capital because it was committed during a robbery and his resulting sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This Court affirmed Wilkerson's conviction and sentence in an unpublished memorandum issued on May 19, 2006. Wilkerson v. State (No. CR–04–0531), 978 So.2d 72 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) (table). The Alabama Supreme Court, after initially granting certiorari review, quashed the writ, and this Court issued a certificate of judgment on August 31, 2007.
Wilkerson filed his petition on June 16, 2008, raising numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. On August 20, 2008, he filed an amendment to his petition raising an additional claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. After receiving a response from the State, accepting depositions, and conducting an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied Wilkerson's petition on July 20, 2009.1 By order dated September 17, 2010, this Court found that the circuit court had erred in finding one of Wilkerson's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel to be barred by Rule 32.2(a)(3) and (a)(5) ( ), and we remanded this case for the circuit court to issue specific written findings of fact regarding that claim. The circuit court complied with our instructions and issued a supplemental order on September 29, 2010.
Wilkerson reasserts on appeal the majority of the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel raised in his petition. He also argues on appeal that the circuit court erred in finding some of his claims to be barred by various provisions in Rule 32.2(a) (Issue I in Wilkerson's brief) and requests that this Court remand this case for the circuit court to issue specific findings of fact regarding those claims (Issue II in Wilkerson's brief). We address these arguments in conjunction with the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel to which they apply.
For a better understanding of Wilkerson's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, we note the following procedural history, gleaned both from the record from Wilkerson's direct appeal 2 and from the Rule 32 proceedings.
On September 11, 2002, Wilkerson was arrested on an outstanding juvenile pick-up order and was questioned about the murder of Donald Williams that had occurred two days earlier, on September 9, 2002. Wilkerson, who was 17 years old at the time, invoked his juvenile Miranda 3 right to have his father, Johnny Wilkerson (hereinafter “Johnny”) present and, after Johnny arrived, Wilkerson gave a statement denying any participation in the murder. Johnny then invoked Wilkerson's right to counsel, questioning ceased, and on September 12, 2002, Johnny hired attorney Tom Radney to represent Wilkerson. Jason Jackson, a former police officer and a law student at the time who worked at Radney's law firm as a law clerk and investigator, met Johnny and obtained a retainer, and then met with Wilkerson at the juvenile-detention facility where he was being held.
The following morning, on September 13, 2002, a juvenile-detention hearing was held, at which Radney represented Wilkerson. After discussions with the prosecutor, Radney advised Wilkerson to cooperate with the police in the murder investigation. That afternoon, Wilkerson was again questioned by police, with Jackson present, and confessed to his participation in the murder. Radney continued representing Wilkerson for four months, during which time he was continually engaged in negotiations with the prosecutor regarding Wilkerson's case.
In January 2003, Johnny retained attorney Tim Davis, and Radney filed a motion to withdraw on January 23, 2003. A hearing was held on February 5, 2003, during which Davis filed his notice of appearance “for the limited purpose of representing [Wilkerson] in entering a guilty plea.” (Record on direct appeal, C. 19.) The trial court granted Radney's motion to withdraw on February 11, 2003. Plea negotiations apparently broke down, and in September 2003, at Davis's request, the trial court appointed Davis and attorney Charles Gillenwaters to represent Wilkerson. Davis and Gillenwaters represented Wilkerson through his November 2004 trial for capital murder and his sentencing hearing. On November 22, 2004, four days after Wilkerson was sentenced, Davis and Gillenwaters moved to withdraw. On December 27, 2004, after a hearing on December 16, 2004, at which Davis and Gillenwaters orally moved for a new trial, the trial court issued an order granting the motions to withdraw and denying the oral motion for a new trial. On December 29, 2004, the trial court appointed Jeremy Armstrong to represent Wilkerson on appeal. The record on appeal was certified as complete on March 3, 2005.
In our unpublished memorandum affirming Wilkerson's conviction and sentence, this Court set out the evidence at trial as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Townes v. State
...859 So.2d 1138, 1155 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (citing Jackson v. State, 562 So.2d 1373, 1380 (Ala.Crim.App.1990) ). In Wilkerson v. State, 70 So.3d 442 (Ala.Crim.App.2011), this Court explained that "[t]o establish a proper Miranda predicate, the State must prove that ‘the accused was informed o......
-
George v. State
...of ... proving by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to entitle the petitioner to relief.’ " Wilkerson v. State, 70 So.3d 442, 451 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011)."[W]hen the facts are undisputed and an appellate court is presented with pure questions of law, that court's review in ......
-
Brooks v. State
...is not required, or the court may take some evidence by such means and other evidence in an evidentiary hearing.’"In Wilkerson v. State, 70 So. 3d 442 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011), this Court explained:" ‘ "The burden of proof in a Rule 32 proceeding rests solely with the petitioner, not the Stat......
-
Woodward v. State
...is not required, or the court may take some evidence by such means and other evidence in an evidentiary hearing."In Wilkerson v. State, 70 So. 3d 442 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011), this Court explained:"'The burden of proof in a Rule 32 proceeding rests solely with the petitioner, not the State.' ......
-
Standard of Review: Pesky Requirement or Powerful Tool?
...are reviewed under a reasonableness standard as set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). See Wilkerson v. State, 70 So. 3d 442, 450 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). 15. Juror Misconduct: Claims of juror misconduct are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Ex parte Dix......