Williams v. State
Decision Date | 31 March 2000 |
Citation | 783 So.2d 108 |
Parties | Luther Jerome WILLIAMS v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Christopher Little, Providence, Rhode Island; and Joel L. Sogol, Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Michael B. Billingsley, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
Alabama Supreme Court 1991689.
The appellant, Luther Jerome Williams, was convicted of capital murder for killing John Robert Kirk during the course of a robbery.See§ 13A-5-40(a)(2),Ala.Code 1975.By a vote of 10-2, the jury recommended that he be sentenced to death.The trial court accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced the appellant to death.This court and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the appellant's conviction on direct appeal, seeWilliams v. State,601 So.2d 1062(Ala.Crim.App.1991), aff'd without opinion, 662 So.2d 929(Ala.1992)(table), and the United States Supreme Court denied the appellant's petition for certiorari review, seeWilliams v. Alabama,506 U.S. 957, 113 S.Ct. 417, 121 L.Ed.2d 340(1992).The relevant facts of the case are set forth in our opinion.This court issued a certificate of judgment on April 29, 1992.
On April 8, 1994, the appellant, through counsel, filed a Rule 32 petition, challenging his conviction and sentence of death.He filed an amended petition on July 7, 1994.After the State responded and after conducting an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied the petition in a thorough, 71-page order.This appeal follows.
The appellant raises numerous issues on appeal, including claims that his attorneys rendered ineffective assistance during the proceedings.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. Crim.App.1995).
Hallford v. State,629 So.2d 6, 8-9(Ala. Crim.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. Crim.App.1987)(footnote omitted).
Davis v. State,720 So.2d 1006, 1014(Ala. Crim.App.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1149, 119 S.Ct. 1049, 143 L.Ed.2d 55(1999).
The appellant argues that the circuit court violated his due process rights during the Rule 32 proceedings.
First, the appellant contends that the circuit court erroneously denied his motions for funds to hire a psychologist, a forensic pathologist, and a forensic expert.Citing Ake v. Oklahoma,470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53(1985), he argues that the State is required to provide indigent defendants with experts to assist in preparing postconviction litigation and that to deny these experts results in the denial of due process.However, this court has held that indigent defendants are not entitled to funds to hire experts to assist in postconviction litigation.SeeFord v. State,630 So.2d 111(Ala.Crim.App.1991), aff'd, 630 So.2d 113(Ala.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1078, 114 S.Ct. 1664, 128 L.Ed.2d 380(1994);Holladay v. State,629 So.2d 673(Ala.Crim.App.1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1171, 114 S.Ct. 1208, 127 L.Ed.2d 555(1994);Hubbard v. State,584 So.2d 895, 900-01(Ala.Crim.App.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1041, 112 S.Ct. 896, 116 L.Ed.2d 798(1992).In denying the appellant's request for funds to hire a psychologist, the circuit court cited Ford,supra, in which we held:
630 So.2d at 112.Also, in denying the appellant's requests for funds to hire a forensic pathologist and a forensic expert, the circuit court stated:
Other jurisdictions have also declined to extend Ake to postconviction or collateral proceedings.SeeBraun v. State,937 P.2d 505, 515(Okla.Crim.App.1997)(...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Miller v. State
...that in adopting the State's answer the trial court repeated in its order the State's citation to and reliance upon Williams v. State, 783 So. 2d 108 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000), a case that had been overruled by this Court approximately two years before the trial court entered its order in this......
-
Ingram v. State
...proceedings. Ford v. State, 630 So.2d 111, 112 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), aff'd, 630 So.2d 113 (Ala.1993). See also Williams v. State, 783 So.2d 108 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), aff'd, 662 So.2d 929 (Ala.1992)(table)."McGahee v. State, 885 So.2d 191, 229 (Ala.Crim.App.2003). On a related matter, Ingram a......
-
Hodges v. State
...v. State, 799 So.2d 966, 977 (Ala.Crim.App.2000); Smith v. State, 797 So.2d 503 (Ala.Crim.App.2000); Williams v. State, 783 So.2d 108 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (Luther Jerome Williams); Williams v. State, 795 So.2d 753 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (Marcus Bernard Williams); Thomas v. State, 766 So.2d 860 ......
-
Jones v. State
...present all possible mitigating evidence.’ " Boyd v. State, 913 So. 2d 1113, 1139 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) (quoting Williams v. State, 783 So. 2d 108, 117 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000) )."[A] claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate and present mitigation evidence will n......