Williams v. State
Decision Date | 04 February 2000 |
Parties | Herbert WILLIAMS, Jr. v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Ellen L. Wiesner, Brookfield, Wisconsin, for appellant.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and J. Clayton Crenshaw, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
Alabama Supreme Court 1991200.
On February 16, 1990, the appellant, Herbert Williams, Jr., was convicted of capital murder for killing Timothy Hasser during the course of a robbery. See § 13A-5-40(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975. By a vote of 9-3, the jury recommended that he be sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole. However, the trial court overrode the jury's recommendation and sentenced the appellant to death by electrocution. This court and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence, see Williams v. State, 627 So.2d 985 (Ala.Cr.App.1991),
aff'd, 627 So.2d 999 (Ala.1993), and the United States Supreme Court denied the appellant's petition for certiorari review, see Williams v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 1012, 114 S.Ct. 1387, 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994). The relevant facts of the case are set forth in those opinions. This court issued a certificate of judgment on September 14, 1993.
On October 17, 1994, the appellant, through counsel, filed a Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition for post-conviction relief, which he amended twice. The State responded, arguing that the issues the appellant raised either lacked merit or were precluded. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied the petition. This appeal follows.
The appellant raises numerous issues on appeal, including substantive claims alleging errors at trial and claims that his attorneys rendered ineffective assistance at trial and on appeal. In reviewing the circuit court's denial of the appellant's petition, we apply the following principles.
Brownlee v. State, 666 So.2d 91, 93 (Ala. Cr.App.1995).
104 S.Ct. at 2065-66. (Citations omitted.) Ex parte Lawley, 512 So.2d 1370, 1372 (Ala.1987).
Hallford v. State, 629 So.2d 6, 8-9 (Ala.Cr. App.1992), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1100, 114 S.Ct. 1870, 128 L.Ed.2d 491 (1994).
Thomas v. State, 511 So.2d 248, 255 (Ala. Cr.App.1987) (footnote omitted).
Davis v. State, 720 So.2d 1006, 1014 (Ala. Cr.App.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1149, 119 S.Ct. 1049, 143 L.Ed.2d 55 (1999).
In its order denying the appellant's petition, the circuit court stated the following with regard to the appellant's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims:
(C.R.648-53, 690.)
The appellant's first argument is that the State withheld exculpatory information in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Specifically, he contends that the State suppressed evidence that a potential witness had seen the appellant and the victim together in Mobile before the murder and evidence that a white Porsche automobile had been seen at the scene of the crime at about 3:30 p.m. on the day of the murder. The appellant did not assert that this claim was based on newly discovered evidence. Therefore, it is procedurally barred because he could have raised it at trial and on direct appeal, but did not. See Rule 32.2(a)(3) and (a)(5), Ala. R.Crim. P.; Boyd v. State, 746 So.2d 364 (Ala.Cr. App.1999); Matthews v. State, 654 So.2d 66 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Lundy v. State, 568 So.2d 399 (Ala.Cr.App.1990).
Furthermore, the appellant's claim is without merit. In rejecting this claim, the circuit court found as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Doster v. State Of Ala.
...820 So. 2d 842, 874 (Ala. Crim. App. 20 00). " Snyder v. State, 893 So. 2d 488, 548 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). In Williams v. State, 782 So. 2d 811 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000), we considered a jury instruction that was virtually identical to the instruction in this case. In finding no reversible er......
-
Ingram v. State
...failed to meet the specificity requirements of Rule 32.6(b), Ala.R.Crim.P. We agree. Moreover, as we stated in Williams v. State, 782 So.2d 811, 818 (Ala.Crim.App.2000):"The appellant's first argument is that the State withheld exculpatory information in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 ......
-
Beckworth v. State
...discovered evidence. The circuit court's ruling is consistent with prior holdings of this Court. As we stated in Williams v. State, 782 So.2d 811, 818 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) :“ ‘The appellant's first argument is that the State withheld exculpatory information in violation of Brady v. Maryland,......
-
Harris v. State
...of her trial would have been different had her trial counsel performed differently regarding this claim. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 782 So.2d 811, 825 (Ala. Crim.App.2000); Brooks v. State, 695 So.2d 176, 182 (Ala.Crim.App.1996). Therefore, Harris has failed to state a claim of ineffecti......