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
