Windsor v. State
Decision Date | 25 September 2009 |
Docket Number | CR–05–1203. |
Citation | 89 So.3d 805 |
Parties | Harvey L. WINDSOR v. STATE of Alabama |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Alabama Supreme Court
Aug. 26, 2011.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 2, 2011.
Certiorari Denied Feb. 17, 2012
Alabama Supreme Court 1110338.
Edward D. Tumlin, Birmingham, for appellant.
Troy King, atty. gen., and Michael A. Nunnelley (withdrew 07/01/2008), J. Clayton Crenshaw and Joshua Bearden, asst. attys. gen., for appellee.
On June 8, 1992, the appellant, Harvey L. Windsor, was convicted of capital murder for the killing of Rayford W. Howard. The murder was made capital because he committed it during the course of a robbery. See§ 13A–5–40(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975. The jury unanimously recommended that Windsor be sentenced to death. On June 12, 1992, the trial court followed the jury's recommendation and sentenced him to death.
This court originally reversed Windsor's conviction and sentence. See Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1013 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). However, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed this court's judgment. See Ex parte Windsor, 683 So.2d 1021 (Ala.1994). On remand from the Alabama Supreme Court, we affirmed Windsor's conviction and sentence, see Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1027 (Ala.Crim.App.1994); the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence, see Ex parte Windsor, 683 So.2d 1042 (Ala.1996); and the United States Supreme Court denied his petition for certiorari review, see Windsor v. Alabama, 520 U.S. 1171, 117 S.Ct. 1438, 137 L.Ed.2d 545 (1997). This court issued a certificate of judgment on November 5, 1996.
On April 1, 1998, Windsor filed a Rule 32 petition, challenging his conviction and sentence. The State filed an answer and motions for a partial dismissal. On November 18, 1998, the circuit court entered an order partially dismissing some of the procedurally barred claims and granting Windsor thirty days to amend his petition to comply with the specificity requirement set forth in Rule 32.6(b), Ala. R.Crim. P. On December 18, 1998, Windsor filed an amended petition. After the State responded again, the circuit court again entered orders dismissing some of the claims on August 17, 1999. The circuit court later scheduled an evidentiary hearing on the remaining claims, but the hearing was continued and, ultimately, the case was assigned to a new judge. On February 17, 2006, the circuit court summarily dismissed the remaining claims from the petition. This appeal followed.
Windsor raises several arguments, including claims that his attorneys rendered ineffective assistance during the proceedings. In reviewing the circuit court's rulings on the appellant's arguments, we apply the following principles:
Cade v. State, 629 So.2d 38, 41 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), cert. denied, , 114 S.Ct. 1579, 128 L.Ed.2d 221 (1994).
Brownlee v. State, 666 So.2d 91, 93 (Ala.Crim.App.1995).
“To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show (1) that his counsel's performance was deficient and (2) that he was prejudiced as a result of the deficient performance. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
“
“Duren v. State, 590 So.2d 360, 362 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), aff'd, 590 So.2d 369 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, , 112 S.Ct. 1594, 118 L.Ed.2d 310 (1992).
“When this court is reviewing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct was appropriate and reasonable. Luke v. State, 484 So.2d 531, 534 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). The burden is on the appellant to show that his counsel's conduct was deficient. Luke.
“
Hallford v. State, 629 So.2d 6, 8–9 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).
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).
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 534, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003).
The following facts, as set forth in this court's opinion on direct appeal, are helpful to an understanding of this case:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woods v. State
...So.2d 492 (Ala.Crim.App.2004), rev'd on other grounds, 957 So.2d 533 (Ala.2006)." Washington, 95 So.3d at 64. See also Windsor v. State, 89 So.3d 805 (Ala.Crim.App.2009).Neither did Woods plead how he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to secure a handwriting expert. The record shows that ......
-
Musgrove v. State
...Ray [v. State, 80 So. 3d 965 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011)]; Davis [v. State, 44 So. 3d 1118 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009)]; Windsor [v. State, 89 So. 3d 805 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009)]; Beckworth [v. State, [Ms. CR-07-0051, May 1, 2009] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2009)]; Smith v. State, 71 So. 3d 12 (A......
-
Mashburn v. State
...; Moody v. State, 95 So.3d 827 (Ala.Crim.App.2011) ; Daniel v. State, 86 So.3d 405 (Ala.Crim.App.2011) ; Windsor v. State, 89 So.3d 805 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) ; Lee v. State, 44 So.3d 1145 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) ; Smith v. State, 71 So.3d 12 (Ala.Crim.App.2008) ; Ferguson v. State, 13 So.3d 418 (......
-
Van Pelt v. State
...and fails to explain how the investigator's assistance would have produced a different result in his trial. ... Windsor [v. State, 89 So. 3d 805 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009)]; see also Thomas [v. State, 766 So. 2d 860, 892 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998)]; see also Smith [v. State, 71 So. 3d 12 (Ala. Crim......