Joe Nathan James, Jr. v. State of Alabama. Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 06/25/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 CR-04-0395 Joe N a t h a n James, J r . v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CC-95-4747.60) Court On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g KELLUM, The Judge. 1 a p p e l l a n t , J o e N a t h a n James, J r . , an i n m a t e on d e a t h row a t Holman C o r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i t y , a p p e a l s the denial of his J u d g e K e l l u m was n o t a member o f t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s when t h e o r i g i n a l o p i n i o n i n t h i s c a s e was i s s u e d . T h i s c a s e was a s s i g n e d t o Judge K e l l u m on J a n u a r y 20, 2009. 1 CR-04-0395 petition Ala. f o r p o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 32, R. C r i m . In May petition The 28, 2002, James f i l e d a Rule 32, A l a . R. Crim. a t t a c k i n g h i s c o n v i c t i o n and h i s s e n t e n c e circuit court's P. court denied ruling. 2006] relief. We affirmed See James v. S t a t e , So. 3d of death. the circuit [Ms. CR-04-0395, ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 6 ) . P., April James then p e t i t i o n e d t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t f o r a w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i . The Supreme Court granted certiorari review to consider whether t h i s Court e r r e d i n sua sponte a p p l y i n g the p r o c e d u r a l bars s e t out i n Rule erred i n refusing James's motion Supreme Court earlier decision 2007] ___ 32, A l a . R. to review to proceed Crim. the c i r c u i t i n forma reversed this Court's ( A l a . 2007), and w h e t h e r we court's denial of pauperis. The Alabama judgment based on i t s i n Ex p a r t e C l e m o n s , So. 3d ___ P., [Ms. 1041915, May decided after a f f i r m a n c e , and remanded t h e c a s e f o r t h i s our 4, earlier Court to consider t h e m e r i t s o f James's i n e f f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e - o f - c o u n s e l c l a i m s and the i n forma pauperis claim. 1051693, November 6, Pursuant t o t h e Supreme 2009] ___ Court's 2 See Ex p a r t e James, So. 3d ___ instructions, [Ms. ( A l a . 2009). we considered CR-04-0395 those issues State, Crim. and found no reversible error. [Ms. CR-04-0395, M a r c h 26, 2010] App. James's 2010). This application James argues case James So. 3d before v. (Ala. this Court on f o r rehearing. in his brief should reverse the c i r c u i t petition because, adopting the proposed he on r e h e a r i n g t h a t Court c o u r t ' s order denying h i s Rule asserts, the circuit order drafted by 32 petition. court the On erred State 32 in denying on relies on A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t ' s r e c e n t o p i n i o n i n Ex p a r t e 2010), Rule this relief Ingram, James's i s now See rehearing, [Ms. 1060413, M a r c h 19, 2010] and the U n i t e d States Supreme So. 3d Court's James (Ala. decision J e f f e r s o n v. U p t o n , (No. 09-8852, May 24, 2010) in U.S. (2010). Initially, we addressed by affirming James's James, Supreme issue. this note that Court i n our conviction, So. 3d a t . Supreme Court issue original and we was specifically opinion found no i n 2006, error. See On c e r t i o r a r i r e v i e w t h e A l a b a m a Court d i d not modify The this our h o l d i n g merely i n regard to directed this Court this to c o n s i d e r two c l a i m s -- t h e i n e f f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e - o f - c o u n s e l 3 CR-04-0395 c l a i m a n d t h e i n forma p a u p e r i s c l a i m . issue we Court's this would acting instructions Court. court] be beyond I f we c o n s i d e r e d t h i s t h e scope o f t h e Supreme i n i t s o p i n i o n remanding this case t o "On remand, t h e i s s u e s d e c i d e d b y a [ r e v i e w i n g become the law of the case, and t h e [lower c o u r t ' s ] d u t y i s t o comply w i t h t h e d i r e c t i o n s g i v e n by t h e r e v i e w i n g court." E l l i s v. S t a t e , 705 So. 2d 843, 847 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1996). Moreover, after r e v i e w i n g the cases cited by James we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e y a r e f a c t u a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from and t h u s i n a p p l i c a b l e t o the present case. First, Alabama the portions Supreme references that Court of the c i r c u i t found the judge o b j e c t i o n a b l e i n Ingram i n the Rule p e r s o n a l l y p r e s i d e d o v e r Ingram's t r i a l . who presided presided over over the t r i a l the Rule court's order the was not 32 p r o c e e d i n g s . 32 were proceedings had I n Ingram, t h e judge the same The judge Supreme who Court stated: " [ A ] p p e l l a t e c o u r t s must be c a r e f u l t o e v a l u a t e a claim that a prepared order drafted by t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y and adopted by t h e t r i a l c o u r t v e r b a t i m does n o t r e f l e c t the independent and i m p a r t i a l f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . I n B e l l v. S t a t e , 593 So. 2d 123 ( A l a . C r i m . 4 CR-04-0395 App. 1991) -- t h e c a s e t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s quoted i n Ingram I I f o r the ' c l e a r l y erroneous' s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w -- t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s observed: "'The t r i a l c o u r t d i d a d o p t v e r b a t i m t h e proposed o r d e r t e n d e r e d by the state; h o w e v e r , f r o m o u r r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d , we are convinced that the findings and c o n c l u s i o n s are those of the t r i a l c o u r t . The r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t was t h o r o u g h l y f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e c a s e and gave t h e a p p e l l a n t c o n s i d e r a b l e l e e w a y i n presenting evidence to support h i s claims.' " B e l l , 593 So. 2d a t 126 (emphasis a d d e d ) . The u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s i n the p r e s e n t case o b v i o u s l y prevent a s i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n here. "We a r e f o r c e d by t h e n a t u r e o f t h e e r r o r s p r e s e n t i n t h e June 8 o r d e r t o r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t of the Court of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s . In the s i m p l e s t terms, the patently erroneous nature of the statements r e g a r d i n g the t r i a l judge's 'personal knowledge' and observations of Ingram's c a p i t a l - m u r d e r t r i a l u n d e r m i n e s any c o n f i d e n c e t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law are the product of the trial judge's independent j u d g m e n t and t h a t t h e June 8 o r d e r reflects the findings and c o n c l u s i o n s of that court." Ingram, The in So. 3d a t main c o n c e r n s . t h e Supreme C o u r t f o u n d o b j e c t i o n a b l e Ingram are not p r e s e n t i n t h i s case; h e r e , p r e s i d e d o v e r b o t h James's t r i a l Also, as we t h e same j u d g e and t h e R u l e 32 p r o c e e d i n g s . n o t e d i n our p r e v i o u s o p i n i o n i n t h i s 5 case, the CR-04-0395 circuit orders." In remanded court court allowed James, both "parties So. 3d a t to submit . J e f f e r s o n v. U p t o n , t h e U n i t e d States J e f f e r s o n ' s habeas corpus p r o c e e d i n g s f o r that court proposed Supreme Court to the t o determine whether the s t a t e lower court's f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s warranted a presumption of correctness. Supreme Court i n granting r e l i e f The stated: "Although we have stated that a court's ' v e r b a t i m a d o p t i o n o f f i n d i n g s o f f a c t p r e p a r e d by p r e v a i l i n g p a r t i e s ' s h o u l d be t r e a t e d as f i n d i n g s o f t h e c o u r t , we have a l s o c r i t i c i z e d t h a t p r a c t i c e . A n d e r s o n [ v . B e s s e m e r C i t y , 470 U.S. [564] a t 572, 105 S.Ct. 1504 [ ( 1 9 8 5 ) ] . And we have n o t c o n s i d e r e d the l a w f u l n e s s o f , nor t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e habeas s t a t u t e t o , t h e u s e o f s u c h a p r a c t i c e where (1) a j u d g e s o l i c i t s t h e p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s ex p a r t e , (2) does n o t p r o v i d e t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y an o p p o r t u n i t y t o c r i t i c i z e t h e f i n d i n g s o r t o s u b m i t h i s own, o r (3) a d o p t s f i n d i n g s t h a t c o n t a i n i n t e r n a l e v i d e n c e s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e j u d g e may n o t have r e a d them. C f . i d . , a t 568, 105 S.Ct. 1504; Ga.Code o f J u d i c i a l C o n d u c t , Canon 3 ( A ) ( 4 ) (1993) ( p r o h i b i t i n g ex p a r t e j u d i c i a l communications)." U.S. at . None o f t h e s e circumstances are present i n James's case. The c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d n o t s o l i c i t p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s ex p a r t e ; indeed, both p a r t i e s were proposed orders. Nothing given the opportunity to submit i n t h i s case suggests t h a t the t r i a l court d i d not read the proposed order before 6 signing i t . CR-04-0395 Accordingly, be James's a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g i s due t o overruled. APPLICATION OVERRULED. W i s e , P . J . , a n d W e l c h , Windom, a n d M a i n , J J . , c o n c u r . 7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
