Jarrod Taylor v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 10/01/2010 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-05-0066 Jarrod Taylor v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal On Remand f r o m WELCH, from M o b i l e C i r c u i t (CC-98-1328.60) t h e Alabama Taylor capital intentionally Gaston, Supreme Court Judge. Jarrod of Court was i n d i c t e d i n A p r i l murder. causing and Steve Dyas Count one t h e deaths pursuant 1998 on f o u r charged of Sherry t o one scheme counts Taylor with Gaston, Bruce or course of CR-05-0066 conduct. See § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . three, and f o u r charged Taylor three victims during 13A-5-40(a)(2), jury and murder. by a was A l a . Code found of 1975. guilty imprisonment held entered 7-5, without a of that and t h e s e n t e n c e affirmed this (Ala. Taylor's petition Alabama, death. petition 534 U.S. judgment. The United for a writ 2002, Taylor 3 2 , A l a . R. Crim. P., capital recommended, to life The after trial which i t recommendation and Court affirmed the v. S t a t e , 808 The A l a b a m a S u p r e m e Ex p a r t e States review, Taylor, Supreme Court and i t 808 S o . 2 d Court certiorari. denied Taylor v. (2002). 31, of sentenced certiorari of a Taylor of death. for § before of p a r o l e . This 1086 On Rule to Court's 2001). the j u r y be See tried counts hearing, 2 d 1148 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ) . Taylor's four hearing, robbery. was o v e r r i d i n g the j u r y ' s convictions 1215 the sentencing Taylor granted a Taylor Taylor sentencing So. of the p o s s i b i l i t y separate a judgment the murder of each of the course Following a sentencing vote court the with Counts two, July sentence. Taylor filed filed a petition challenging pursuant the convictions a c o r r e c t e d R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n 2 to and on A u g u s t CR-05-0066 15, 2, 2002; Taylor filed a first 2003; Taylor filed a corrected May 5, 2003. alleging The that certain a c l a i m upon which sufficiently, claims were not See Crim. court of of dismissal Taylor's Rule petition remained filed 32.2(c), court stated it 32 p e t i t i o n . pending. the outside that On claims a hearing i t was that they P. on and granted the filed 3 2, 2004, in Rule 32 other -- C l a i m I V . B . 1 0 a n d Claim stating, on t h e g r o u n d t h a t period set forth 11, 2004, motions. The i t sprevious outside claims among On F e b r u a r y aside the State court claims pending setting were 32.6(b), the w o u l d a l l o w d i s c o v e r y on t h e two c l a i m s ground pleaded statutory i n Taylor's February the l i m i t a t i o n s Crim. 32.3, many not have been d i s m i s s e d A l a . R. held Other circuit t h a t two o f T a y l o r ' s were not the circuit for -- s h o u l d within the motions V.C. were to state P. State's things, failed 32.2, 2003, with for dismissal, Rules 23, letter granted, filed October a on precluded, be On filed May amended p e t i t i o n first on s e v e r a l motions could were period. A l a . R. filed relief or limitations 32.7(d), State a m e n d e d R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n i n Rule the circuit circuit order they and court that i t had d i s m i s s e d the l i m i t a t i o n s on period. CR-05-0066 On court July partial 2005, the proposed a 28, order stating dismissal entered disposed of a l l claims i t s entirety, petition. The that the i n Taylor's Rule court entered Taylor's circuit submitted to the court's corrected court stated, 32 On dismissing, amended i n relevant of completely petition. an o r d e r first circuit orders on O c t o b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 3 , h a d A u g u s t 1, 2 0 0 5 , t h e c i r c u i t in State Rule 32 part: "Upon t h o r o u g h c o n s i d e r a t i o n and r e v i e w o f t h e p l e a d i n g s t h a t have been f i l e d by P e t i t i o n e r T a y l o r and t h e S t a t e of Alabama i n t h i s m a t t e r and t h e o r d e r s t h a t t h i s C o u r t e n t e r e d on O c t o b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 3 , this Court finds that a l l of the claims in P e t i t i o n e r T a y l o r ' s c o r r e c t e d f i r s t a m e n d e d R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n have been d i s m i s s e d . For that reason, this Court f i n d s that P e t i t i o n e r Taylor's corrected f i r s t a m e n d e d R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n i s due t o b e summarily dismissed." (C. 1640.) Taylor appeals October order 23, 2003, summarily This and appeals dismissing initially the August the p e t i t i o n Taylor 1, 2005, on final in i t s entirety. by order had filed v. State dismissed dismissal entered appeal the n o t i c e of appeal App. he of p a r t i a l 1 0 , 2 0 0 6 , on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e a t t o r n e y who on May Court the orders had not been g r a n t e d (No. C R - 0 5 - 0 0 6 6 ) , 2006)(table). Taylor's Taylor filed 4 978 with p r o hac v i c e s t a t u s . So. 3d the 76 ( A l a . Crim. Alabama Supreme CR-05-0066 Court a granted Supreme Taylor's petition Taylor's Court ___ So. circuit On evidence 3d a writ petition. reversed appeal, proceedings. for Ex ___ and parte (Ala. On i t certiorari, certiorari this Court's remanded Taylor, [Ms. 2008). court's d i s m i s s a l of direct appeal, as of this review Court that the judgment the cause 1051315, Therefore, Taylor's and Rule we 32 Alabama dismissing for Jan. now Court further 18, 2008] review petition. summarized the State's follows: "On t h e m o r n i n g o f D e c e m b e r 12, 1 9 9 7 , J a r r o d T a y l o r and his friend, Kenyatta McMillan, took a .380 c a l i b e r p i s t o l f r o m t h e home o f a f r i e n d o f T a y l o r ' s and t h e n b o u g h t a B B - p e l l e t p i s t o l f r o m a n e a r b y Wal-Mart discount department s t o r e . According to M c M i l l a n , who was t h e S t a t e ' s m a i n w i t n e s s against Taylor, Taylor was armed with the pistol and M c M i l l a n h a d t h e BB g u n . L a t e r t h a t morning, the two men entered S t e v e Dyas M o t o r s , a used car d e a l e r s h i p i n M o b i l e , f o r the purpose of r o b b i n g i t . Jarrod Taylor pretended to be interested in purchasing a Ford Mustang automobile. Taylor negotiated the purchase of the automobile with S h e r r y G a s t o n , a s a l e s p e r s o n at Steve Dyas M o t o r s , a n d t o l d h e r t h a t he was f r o m L o u i s i a n a a n d t h a t h i s f a t h e r - i n - l a w was g o i n g t o g i v e h i m t h e money t o purchase the automobile as an early Christmas present. Taylor and McMillan spent the day test-driving the automobile, filling out the p a p e r w o r k f o r t h e p u r c h a s e o f t h e c a r , and w a i t i n g for Taylor's f i c t i t i o u s f a t h e r - i n - l a w to a r r i v e with the $13,700 to p u r c h a s e the c a r . A t one point, T a y l o r asked Sherry Gaston f o r a b i l l of s a l e t h a t he c o u l d t a k e t o h i s f a t h e r - i n - l a w t o show h i m the 5 the CR-05-0066 price o f the automobile. T h e y came a n d w e n t f r o m the used c a r d e a l e r s h i p s e v e r a l times d u r i n g the day. As c l o s i n g t i m e n e a r e d , t h e e m p l o y e e s o f S t e v e Dyas Motors began l e a v i n g t h e d e a l e r s h i p t o p r e p a r e f o r t h e i r annual Christmas p a r t y . When T a y l o r a n d McMillan entered the car dealership f o r the last time, around dusk, only Sherry Gaston, who was a w a i t i n g T a y l o r ' s r e t u r n to complete the s a l e , h e r husband, B r u c e G a s t o n , and Steve Dyas, t h e owner, were i n the o f f i c e . When T a y l o r a n d M c M i l l a n entered the o f f i c e , T a y l o r immediately shot Bruce G a s t o n i n t h e c h e s t w i t h t h e .380 p i s t o l . Bruce G a s t o n f e l l t o t h e f l o o r as S h e r r y G a s t o n r a n t o a bathroom and l o c k e d h e r s e l f i n and Steve Dyas r a n t o a b a c k room and t r i e d t o e s c a p e t h r o u g h a window. K e n y a t t a M c M i l l a n s t o p p e d Steve Dyas and b r o u g h t h i m back to the o f f i c e at gunpoint. T a y l o r and M c M i l l a n w e r e d e m a n d i n g t o k n o w w h e r e t h e money a n d t h e s a f e [ w e r e ] , a n d S t e v e D y a s was o n h i s k n e e s b e g g i n g f o r his l i f e . Dyas t r i e d t o c o n v i n c e them t h a t he d i d n o t h a v e a s a f e a n d d i d n o t k e e p money i n t h e o f f i c e ; h e o f f e r e d t h e t w o gunmen a n y c a r o n t h e l o t a n d t h e money a n d c r e d i t c a r d s f r o m h i s w a l l e t . As Steve Dyas begged f o r h i s l i f e , T a y l o r p l a c e d t h e .380 p i s t o l t o D y a s ' s h e a d a n d s h o t h i m , k i l l i n g h i m instantly. T a y l o r then went t o t h e b a t h r o o m door and ordered Sherry Gaston t o come o u t . Sherry Gaston obeyed and opened t h e bathroom door. She b e g g e d f o r h e r l i f e a n d t o l d t h e m t h a t s h e was t h e m o t h e r o f t w o c h i l d r e n who n e e d e d h e r ; T a y l o r p u t t h e .380 p i s t o l t o h e r h e a d a n d s h o t h e r , k i l l i n g her i n s t a n t l y . The t w o gunmen t h e n r u m m a g e d t h e o f f i c e a r e a , t a k i n g S h e r r y Gaston's purse and t h e w a l l e t s f r o m t h e two male v i c t i m s . They t o o k t h e paperwork Sherry Gaston had prepared f o r the s a l e o f t h e a u t o m o b i l e , l e a v i n g c o p i e s o f t h e p a p e r w o r k on S h e r r y G a s t o n ' s d e s k t h a t t h e y t h o u g h t w o u l d make i t appear t h a t J a r r o d T a y l o r had bought the automobile. As t h e y were p r e p a r i n g t o l e a v e , T a y l o r noticed B r u c e G a s t o n move, s o he w a l k e d o v e r t o G a s t o n ' s b o d y , p u t t h e .380 p i s t o l a g a i n s t B r u c e Gaston's head and shot him, k i l l i n g him i n s t a n t l y . The t w o 6 CR-05-0066 gunmen t o o k t h e a u t o m o b i l e t h e y h a d b e e n f o r and f l e d t o S e l m a , where t h e y were the next morning." Taylor v. State, 8 08 So. 2d 1148, 11 60-61 negotiating apprehended (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). Standard of Review "'The s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w on a p p e a l i n a p o s t c o n v i c t i o n proceeding i s whether the t r i a l judge a b u s e d h i s d i s c r e t i o n when he d e n i e d t h e p e t i t i o n . Ex p a r t e Heaton, 542 So. 2d 931 (Ala. 1989).' E l l i o t t v . S t a t e , 601 So. 2d 1 1 1 8 , 1119 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 9 9 2 ) . ' [ W ] h e n t h e f a c t s a r e u n d i s p u t e d a n d an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i s p r e s e n t e d w i t h pure q u e s t i o n s of l a w , t h a t c o u r t ' s r e v i e w i n a R u l e 32 p r o c e e d i n g i s de n o v o . ' Ex p a r t e W h i t e , 792 So. 2d 1 0 9 7 , 1098 (Ala. 2001). ' M o r e o v e r , "when r e v i e w i n g a c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s r u l i n g s made i n a p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n , we may a f f i r m a r u l i n g i f i t i s c o r r e c t f o r any reason."' L e e v . S t a t e , [Ms. C R - 0 7 - 0 0 5 4 , O c t o b e r 9, 2009] So. 3d , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2009), q u o t i n g Bush v. State, [Ms. C R - 0 3 - 1 9 0 2 , May 29, 2009] So. 3d , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2009)." Dunaway v. ___ , ___ [Ms. (Ala. Crim. With court's State, this conviction App. standard summary CR-06-0996, Dec. 18, 2009] So. 3d 2009). i n mind, dismissal of we now Taylor's review petition the circuit for post- relief. I. Taylor entered the first final argues order that on the c i r c u i t August 7 1, c o u r t e r r e d when i t 2005. Taylor contends CR-05-0066 that the c i r c u i t belief court's d i s m i s s a l was b a s e d that, i n i t searlier dismissed every petition. claim Taylor partial-dismissal Taylor argues on i t s m i s t a k e n that had raised the c i r c u i t orders, i n h i s Rule court's orders, i s s u e d on O c t o b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 3 , h a d n o t d i s m i s s e d claims, that of the claims, Specifically, dismissed partial the State and i thad 32 previous a l lthe h a d n e v e r m o v e d f o r d i s m i s s a l o f some that some claims remained pending. T a y l o r argues t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g c l a i m s were n o t i n the c i r c u i t court's October 23, 2003, o r d e r s of dismissal: Claim IV., paragraphs 47-49 (general allegations i n e f f e c t i v e assistance of c o u n s e l ) ; of C l a i m I V . B . 1 ( c ) , p a r a g r a p h 66 ( a l l e g a t i o n s o f i n e f f e c t i v e assistance of counsel related to voir dire examination); Claim I V . B . 4 ( b ) , p a r a g r a p h s 109-15, 118-25 of i n e f f e c t i v e assistance of counsel failure to retain experts); Claim IV.B.4(c), paragraphs 130-35 (allegations of i n e f f e c t i v e assistance of counsel related to crossexamination of codefendant Kenyatta M c M i l l a n ) ; Claim IV.B.4(e), paragraphs ineffective assistance pretrial investigation); Claim IV.B.5, paragraphs 174-75 i n e f f e c t i v e assistance of counsel instruction). 8 (allegations related to 141-45 (allegations of counsel related of to (allegations of related to a jury CR-05-0066 (Taylor's brief, Taylor cumulative -- argues circuit dismiss had were IV.B.10 a 690 grounds, a l s o remained granted and C l a i m pending. the State's motion to and Crim. P. 898 see those of (Supp. should but the not letter claims 49-50.) parties limitations to Ala. the R. circuit were n o t s u b j e c t limitations have on t h e g r o u n d 32.2(c), in a the C. one-year Rule ( A l a . 2004), that V.C. V.C. period the the State continued V.C. -- of h o w e v e r , t h e S t a t e , c i t i n g Ex p a r t e G a r d n e r , reinstated. Claim misconduct outside violation hearing, allegations they filed acknowledged for IV.B.10 that time-barred, 2d Claim c o u r t had i n i t i a l l y Subsequently, So. that of j u r o r Claim been 19.) 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 -- a n d C l a i m allegations The a t p. 1 At period to d i s m i s s a l and should the February to assert that Claim been dismissed discussed that on court, 11, 2004, IV.B.10 Rule portions be and 32.2(c) of those c l a i m s h a d b e e n d i s m i s s e d on p r o c e d u r a l g r o u n d s i n a d d i t i o n t o Rule the 32.2(c). State's been After acknowledgment dismissed as " ( S u p p . C. record f i l e d with 1 i t considered the p a r t i e s ' that the time-barred, the claims circuit arguments should court . ) "r e f e r s t o pages from the t h i s C o u r t on A p r i l 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 . 9 not and have stated: supplemental CR-05-0066 "Okay. the That's Court fine. set[s] As i t relates aside i t s previous d i s c o v e r y t o t a k e p l a c e on hearing a t p. The not moved t o not a l l the t h a t the c i r c u i t previously disposed that initially had Claims been this Therefore, Court hearing parties' dismissal, 2005, the claims final the circuit order allow 11, 2004, Court Taylor had that court's partial-dismissal orders of a l l claims. and V.C. The of summarily have the court court summarily t h a t i t had in his limited that circuit The transcripts separately paginated, d e s i g n a t e d by the date numbers. 2 a agreed the will (Feb. erred for been foregoing entered the c o u r t had remand not State dismissed State argues i n i t s b r i e f those pending after and to t h i s t h a t the c i r c u i t order having order V.C., raised improperly should on IV.B.10, claims." claims IV.B.10 3 2 . 2 ( c ) g r o u n d s and them. two Claims 2 dismiss concedes Rule those State concedes i n i t s b r i e f p e t i t i o n and had 23.) to the also petition based on reinstated on appeal that an evidentiary dismissed. claims orders remained of partial i n e n t e r i n g i t s August dismissing the The petition 1, in i t s of the hearings in this case are so citations to the hearings are of the h e a r i n g , w i t h the r e l e v a n t page 10 CR-05-0066 e n t i r e t y ; we t h e r e f o r e r e m a n d t h e c a u s e t o t h e t r i a l resolution On of the pending remand the c i r c u i t claims. court court f o r 3 shall conduct a hearing the a l l e g a t i o n s not p r e v i o u s l y d i s m i s s e d by t h e c i r c u i t In lieu o f an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , evidence by depositions either of as p r o v i d e d event, fact required affidavits, related by Rule court 32.9(a), shall A l a . R. c o u r t may take or A l a . R. Crim. make s p e c i f i c to each m a t e r i a l i s s u e 32.9(d), court. interrogatories, written i n Rule the c i r c u i t the c i r c u i t on Crim. of f a c t P. P. In findings presented, as I f a hearing is We a r e aware t h a t t h e c i r c u i t court dismissed Claim I V . B . 1 0 , p a r a g r a p h s 1 8 6 - 8 7 , a n d C l a i m V.C., p a r a g r a p h 2 1 4 B , on g r o u n d s i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e i n c o r r e c t l y a p p l i e d l i m i t a t i o n s bar. The c i r c u i t c o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h o s e p o r t i o n s o f t h e c l a i m s on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e y f a i l e d t o s t a t e a m a t e r i a l i s s u e o f law or f a c t , see Rule 3 2 . 7 ( d ) . ( C . 1538-39.) The c o u r t a l s o d i s m i s s e d t h o s e p o r t i o n s o f C l a i m I V . B . 1 0 a n d C l a i m V.C. on the g r o u n d t h a t t h e y were n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y p l e a d e d , see R u l e s 32.3 and 3 2 . 6 ( b ) . ( C . 1528.) I t i s u n c l e a r from the r e c o r d whether the c i r c u i t court intended to s e t aside the d i s m i s s a l of those c l a i m s e n t i r e l y or whether i t i n t e n d e d o n l y t o s e t a s i d e t h e d i s m i s s a l i t h a d e n t e r e d b a s e d on t h e o n e - y e a r l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d . On r e m a n d , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t may r e a f f i r m its d i s m i s s a l of those c l a i m s on a n y o f t h o s e additional grounds. I f the c i r c u i t court r e a f f i r m s i t s e a r l i e r d i s m i s s a l o f p a r a g r a p h s 186-87 o f C l a i m I V . B . 1 0 and p a r a g r a p h 214B o f C l a i m V.C. on t h e a l t e r n a t i v e g r o u n d s , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t m u s t c l a r i f y i t s o r d e r and s t a t e t h a t i t i n t e n d e d o n l y t o s e t a s i d e t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h o s e c l a i m s as i t r e l a t e d t o t h e l i m i t a t i o n s b a r b u t t h a t t h e d i s m i s s a l on o t h e r g r o u n d s was i n t e n d e d t o stand. 3 11 CR-05-0066 conducted, the the r e t u r n to remand s h a l l proceedings. is entitled court may I f the to r e l i e f grant such circuit on any relief court of the as contain a transcript determines that remaining i t deems of Taylor claims, then the appropriate. II. Taylor when i t the argues the the circuit adopted the proposed orders petition that that submitted adoption of b i a s . Taylor by the second, that T a y l o r says t h a t the as the an court should i n t e g r a t e d whole claims after and reversal d i s m i s s a l of Taylor created an the i n the circuit not have argues appearance court petition have c o n s i d e r e d should to First, orders because i t viewed each a l l e g a t i o n erred for partial State. of the S t a t e ' s argues, court erred separately; the petition dismissed any of a piecemeal a n a l y s i s . A. The adoption dismissing warrant claims of the State's proposed was not error in this case, orders and partially i t does reversal. "Alabama Courts have r e p e a t e d l y u p h e l d the circuit c o u r t ' s a d o p t i o n of p r o p o s e d o r d e r s d r a f t e d by the State i n p o s t c o n v i c t i o n cases. F o r e x a m p l e , i n Hyde v. State, 950 S o . 2 d 344 (Ala.Crim.App.2006), we stated: 12 not CR-05-0066 "'Hyde c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t erred i n adopting the State's proposed order. S p e c i f i c a l l y , he a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e are numerous f a c t u a l and l e g a l e r r o r s i n the order t h a t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e order does n o t r e p r e s e n t t h e c o u r t ' s own i n d e p e n d e n t j u d g m e n t , b u t shows a w h o l e s a l e a d o p t i o n o f the State's proposed order without c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f h i s c l a i m s . However, t h i s C o u r t has r e p e a t e d l y u p h e l d t h e p r a c t i c e o f adopting t h e S t a t e ' s p r o p o s e d o r d e r when denying a Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief. See, e.g., C o r a l v. S t a t e , 900 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 4 , 1288 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , E x p a r t e J e n k i n s , 972 S o . 2 d 159 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , a n d the cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . "Alabama c o u r t s h a v e c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t e v e n when a trial court adopts verbatim a party's p r o p o s e d o r d e r , t h e 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 those of the t r i a l c o u r t a n d t h e y may b e r e v e r s e d o n l y i f t h e y are c l e a r l y erroneous." McGahee v . S t a t e , 885 So. 2d 191, 229-30 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003).' "950 So. 2d a t 3 7 1 . "Thus, e v e n when a c i r c u i t court adopts a p r o p o s e d o r d e r i n i t s e n t i r e t y , t h e p e t i t i o n e r must show t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t a n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w i n t h a t o r d e r a r e ' c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s ' b e f o r e an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l r e v e r s e t h e o r d e r s o l e l y on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e o r d e r was s u b m i t t e d b y t h e S t a t e . " Hodges v. S t a t e , , (Ala. [Ms. C R - 0 4 - 1 2 2 6 , M a r c h 2 3 , 2 0 0 7 ] Crim. App. 2007). The A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t r e c e n t l y s t a t e d t h a t courts must be So. 3d c a r e f u l to evaluate 13 a claim that "appellate a prepared CR-05-0066 order d r a f t e d by court verbatim findings (Ala. reflect conclusions [Ms. 10 6 0 4 1 3 , of the the March the the i n d e p e n d e n t and trial 19, that a d o p t e d by impartial court." 2010] So. trial Ex parte 3d , 2010). Taylor the does not and Ingram, t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y and claims State's that only proposed orders i t adjudicated does not his argue t h a t the fact, those have carefully circuit of the adoption dismissing convinced that conclusions findings court's of the orders required the direct on circuit conclusions State's answer, appeal; the any an along the i n an court, court's unreasonable conclusions itself. the of Taylor's State's are not we with orders the of alleged personal 14 he were not, in we regarding the proposed and we are and also hold that those erroneous. The Taylor's record partial orders findings the clearly a n a l y s i s of and manner; claims, represent and of Nonetheless, claims of court, adoption appearance of b i a s Taylor's orders and the based many those an f i n d i n g s and circuit summarily created claims considered court's circuit from petition trial and d i s m i s s a l were not knowledge or the and observations CR-05-0066 garnered by t h e judge Taylor's case order during from adopted Ex p a r t e by the t r i a l . Ingram the court This d i s t i n g u i s h e s 4 because, hearing i n Ingram, t h e the Rule 32 petition i n c l u d e d a s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e j u d g e was b a s i n g h i s d e c i s i o n o n personal knowledge sentencing, over although the t r i a l Taylor and observations that judge from the trial had n o t , i n f a c t , and presided of the case. i s entitled t o no r e l i e f on t h i s claim of error. B. Taylor argues considering evaluating contends that the his petition as circuit a the c i r c u i t prejudicial with assistance of respect counsel court's because, specific factual erred and, by error he was says, not instead, individually. to h i s allegation ineffective-assistance-of-counsel many whole the a l l e g a t i o n s of error that court by Taylor particularly of he ineffective made one c l a i m t h a t was s u p p o r t e d allegations. The State argues Alabama law r e q u i r e s a p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n e r t o p l e a d by that with Nor c o u l d they, because t h e judge p r e s i d i n g over t h e Rule 32 p r o c e e d i n g w a s n o t t h e j u d g e who p r e s i d e d o v e r t h e t r i a l o f the case, so o b s e r v a t i o n s b a s e d on p e r s o n a l knowledge from t r i a l c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n made i n t h i s proceeding. 4 15 CR-05-0066 specificity We every agree w i t h Rule independent the claim raised in the petition. State. 32.6(b), Ala. R. Crim. P., provides: "The p e t i t i o n m u s t c o n t a i n a c l e a r a n d s p e c i f i c statement of the grounds upon which relief is sought, i n c l u d i n g f u l l d i s c l o s u r e of the f a c t u a l b a s i s of t h o s e grounds. A bare a l l e g a t i o n that a constitutional right has b e e n v i o l a t e d and mere conclusions of law shall not be sufficient to w a r r a n t any f u r t h e r proceedings." Thus, each claim statement that, claims satisfy of of a the according grounds 2d to for 1274, grounds to the must contain for relief consists subcategory is Crim. numerous [an] s u f f i c i e n t l y pleaded."), Jenkins, 972 So. 2d to capital clear the Rule and the 32, specific underlying 159 cases C o r a l v. App. basis facts for i s a general specific the overruled other on (Ala. 2005). 900 So. claim of a l l e g a t i o n that subcategories. claim in State, 2004)("[T]he independent have h e l d t h a t the p r o c e d u r a l fully and sufficiently. (Ala. of a of Even 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 i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l often requirements p e t i t i o n e r , provide pleaded 1284 pleading petition relief. m u s t be the that must g r o u n d s , Ex Alabama a p p e l l a t e d e f a u l t g r o u n d s o f R u l e 32 which 16 the death penalty Each has be parte courts apply been CR-05-0066 imposed. (Ala. of See, Crim. Rule Hunt App. 2005). apply 32 penalty e.g., equally to has been also contends of a claim considered U.S. states the 362 and the capital where (2000). So. 2d pleading cases this counsel." App. 2005), 2010] has 1041 , 1058 requirements i n which the death has applies have v. State, 929 v. "We ineffective So. State, 2d 491, [Ms. as to can applied v. to must "Other whether Strickland find the no case cumulative- assistance 514 in Taylor, noted: analysis in Scott counsel i n agreement stated: offered Williams Court courts , of not of 3d cites this claims quoted assistance he to Brooks So. are allegations also appellate analysis and However, effect' Court the ineffective federal courts Alabama effect of that cumulatively, 'cumulative claims"; 2 6, too, 940 imposed. support 529 State, So, 5 Taylor be v. of (Ala. Crim. CR-06-2233, March ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 1 0 ) ; see also We r e c o g n i z e t h a t , i n E x p a r t e W a r d , [Ms. 1 0 5 1 8 1 8 , J u n e 1, 2 0 0 7 ] So. 3 d ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t the time l i m i t a t i o n f o r f i l i n g a p e t i t i o n , imposed i n Rule 32.2(c), may be s u s p e n d e d i n l i m i t e d , exceptional circumstances. The C o u r t s t a t e d " t h a t e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g i s a v a i l a b l e i n extraordinary circumstances t h a t are beyond the p e t i t i o n e r ' s c o n t r o l and t h a t a r e u n a v o i d a b l e even w i t h the e x e r c i s e of d i l i g e n c e . " So. 3d a t . However, the e q u i t a b l e - t o l l i n g e x c e p t i o n h a s no a p p l i c a t i o n i n t h i s c a s e . 5 17 CR-05-0066 McNabb v . S t a t e , and Hunt 2005). a v. 991 S o . 2 d 3 1 3 , 332 State, 940 properly dismissed effect analysis i n that Crim. of i n Rule 3 2 , A l a . R. ineffective claims that App. of are not summarily t o be P. A only dismissed that summarily cumulative- requirements An counsel, grounds. claims analysis of including on a properly f o r pleading Therefore, even i fa a n a l y s i s were r e q u i r e d by Alabama l a w , t h a t not eliminate claim of i n e f f e c t i v e Taylor's assistance d i r e c t i v e s of Rule Taylor Crim. i s performed o r on p r o c e d u r a l would due the pleading assistance analysis, only analysis. a n a l y s i s does n o t e l i m i n a t e cumulative-effect the (Ala. i s considered, are considered deficiencies factor 1071 and not otherwise cumulative-effect pleaded 1041 , pleaded established claims 2d M o r e t o t h e p o i n t , h o w e v e r , i s t h e f a c t t h a t e v e n when cumulative-effect are So. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2007); o b l i g a t i o n to plead of counsel i n compliance each with 32. i s not e n t i t l e d to r e l i e f on e i t h e r c l a i m o f e r r o r raised. III. Taylor dismissed, argues on that the circuit procedural-bar 18 grounds court and erred when i t for pleading CR-05-0066 deficiencies, ineffective 32.6(b), numerous assistance of 32.7(d), Ala. and none of been dismissed the on the specific allegations facts. He presented Pleading Rule burden 32.3 of evidence the relief." contain which facts Rule a clear relief factual is basis shall of not proceedings." C r i m . App. 32 petition should have they were pleaded with and those of f a c t or dismissed law and that 32 petitioner shall by a entitle the "[t]he statement of A have the of the preponderance that grounds. clear precluded. including the petitioner petition grounds sufficient State, Court to upon full disclosure bare a l l e g a t i o n that 913 stated: 19 warrant So. 2d any 1113, to must of the b e e n v i o l a t e d and mere c o n c l u s i o n s I n B o y d v. this to states sought, t h a t each of the i n Rule "[t]he specific be 2003), or not allegations contained issues necessary c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t has law that proving 32.6(b) 32.3, argues the barred and 32.2, Taylor Requirements pleading Rules of P. also claims that claims Rule material states See and Crim. says, none were p r o c e d u r a l l y A. R. ground b e c a u s e , he claims counsel. allegations in his specificity and substantive a of further 1125 (Ala. CR-05-0066 "'Rule 32.6(b) r e q u i r e s t h a t the p e t i t i o n i t s e l f d i s c l o s e t h e f a c t s r e l i e d upon i n s e e k i n g r e l i e f . ' B o y d v . S t a t e , 746 S o . 2 d 3 6 4 , 406 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999). In other words, i t i s not the p l e a d i n g of a conclusion 'which, i f true, entitle[s] the p e t i t i o n e r to r e l i e f . ' L a n c a s t e r v . S t a t e , 638 S o . 2d 1370, 1373 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993) . I t i s the a l l e g a t i o n of facts i n p l e a d i n g which, i f true, e n t i t l e a p e t i t i o n e r to r e l i e f . After facts are pleaded, which, i f true, e n t i t l e the p e t i t i o n e r to relief, the petitioner i s then entitled to an opportunity, as provided in Rule 32.9, Ala.R.Crim.P., to present evidence proving those alleged facts." In this Hyde v. Court State, 950 So. 2 d 344 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2006), recognized: "The b u r d e n o f p l e a d i n g u n d e r R u l e 32.3 and Rule 32.6(b) i s a h e a v y one. C o n c l u s i o n s u n s u p p o r t e d by s p e c i f i c f a c t s w i l l not s a t i s f y the requirements of R u l e 32.3 a n d R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) . The f u l l f a c t u a l b a s i s for t h e c l a i m m u s t be included i n the petition itself. I f , assuming every f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n i n a Rule 32 petition to be true, a court cannot determine whether the p e t i t i o n e r is entitled to r e l i e f , t h e p e t i t i o n e r has n o t s a t i s f i e d t h e burden o f p l e a d i n g u n d e r R u l e 32.3 a n d R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) . See B r a c k n e l l v . S t a t e , 883 S o . 2 d 724 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003). To sufficiently p l e a d an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel, a Rule 32 p e t i t i o n e r n o t o n l y must ' i d e n t i f y the [specific] acts or omissions of counsel that are a l l e g e d not to have been the r e s u l t of reasonable professional j u d g m e n t , ' S t r i c k l a n d v. W a s h i n g t o n , 466 U.S. 668, 6 9 0 , 104 S . C t . 2 0 5 2 , 80 L . E d . 2 d 674 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , b u t a l s o m u s t p l e a d s p e c i f i c f a c t s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he o r s h e was p r e j u d i c e d b y t h e a c t s o r o m i s s i o n s , i . e . , f a c t s i n d i c a t i n g 'that there i s a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y that, but f o r counsel's u n p r o f e s s i o n a l e r r o r s , the r e s u l t of the p r o c e e d i n g would have been d i f f e r e n t . ' 20 CR-05-0066 466 U.S. a t 6 9 4 , 104 S . C t . 2 0 5 2 . A b a r e a l l e g a t i o n that prejudice occurred without specific facts i n d i c a t i n g how t h e p e t i t i o n e r was p r e j u d i c e d i s n o t sufficient." 950 S o . 2 d a t 3 5 6 . "Moreover, "'An e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g o n a c o r a m n o b i s p e t i t i o n [now R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n ] i s r e q u i r e d o n l y i f t h e p e t i t i o n i s " m e r i t o r i o u s on i t s face." E x p a r t e B o a t w r i g h t , 471 S o . 2 d 1257 ( A l a . 1985). A petition i s "meritorious on i t s face" only i f i t c o n t a i n s a c l e a r and s p e c i f i c statement o f t h e grounds upon w h i c h r e l i e f i s sought, including full disclosure of the facts relied upon (as o p p o s e d to a general statement c o n c e r n i n g t h e n a t u r e and e f f e c t o f t h o s e f a c t s ) s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r i s e n t i t l e d to r e l i e f i f those facts are true. Ex p a r t e Boatwright, s u p r a ; Ex p a r t e C l i s b y , 5 0 1 S o . 2 d 483 (Ala. 1986).' " M o o r e v . S t a t e , 502 S o . 2 d 8 1 9 , 820 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . C o n t r a r y t o [ t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s ] a s s e r t i o n s , h e was r e q u i r e d t o p l e a d s p e c i f i c f a c t s t o support each of his claims i n order to satisfy the pleading r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P." Lee v. S t a t e , [Ms. C R - 0 7 - 0 0 5 4 , (Ala. Crim. App. Rule 32.7(d), O c t . 9, 2009) So. 3d , 2009). A l a . R. Crim. P., provides, in relevant part: "If the court determines that the p e t i t i o n i s not s u f f i c i e n t l y s p e c i f i c , or i s precluded, or f a i l s 21 CR-05-0066 t o s t a t e a c l a i m , o r t h a t no m a t e r i a l i s s u e o f f a c t or law e x i s t s w h i c h would e n t i t l e the p e t i t i o n e r t o r e l i e f u n d e r t h i s r u l e a n d t h a t no p u r p o s e w o u l d be s e r v e d by any further proceedings, the court may e i t h e r d i s m i s s the p e t i t i o n or grant leave to f i l e an amended p e t i t i o n . " As explained properly below, dismissed sufficiently pleaded, or conclude claims the we that the circuit Taylor now contends were f a c t or law, B. Rule Before compelled Taylor 28(a)(10), we to Ala. examine address presents Ala. R. appellant's brief the R. brief App. must a on P. issues App. claims whether in his 28(a)(10), material P., of Compliance the petition, majority this That of court precluded. were not created that of issue rule the comply we are arguments with provides Rule that an contain " [ a ] n argument c o n t a i n i n g the contentions of the appellant/petitioner with respect to the issues presented, and t h e r e a s o n s t h e r e f o r , w i t h c i t a t i o n s t o t h e c a s e s , s t a t u t e s , o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s , and p a r t s of the record relied on. ... Citations shall r e f e r e n c e the s p e c i f i c page number(s) t h a t r e l a t e to the p r o p o s i t i o n f o r which the case i s c i t e d " Parts Taylor's the have III.C.2 brief claims been from - III.C.5 consist almost Taylor's summarily and portions entirely petition dismissed. 22 of that, At of Part scant he one says, III.D. of summaries of should not point, Taylor CR-05-0066 acknowledges in the the b r i e f ' s a footnote brief lack of substantive i n the introductory i n which Taylor when i t s u m m a r i l y d i s m i s s e d Taylor section contends claims legal analysis; of the p o r t i o n of the c i r c u i t f o rpleading court erred deficiencies, stated: " B e c a u s e t h e P l e a d i n g O r d e r d i s m i s s e d c e r t a i n o f Mr. T a y l o r ' s c l a i m s b a s e d on R u l e s 3 2 . 3 a n d 3 2 . 6 ( b ) -¬ p l e a d i n g r u l e s t h a t go t o t h e l e g a l s u f f i c i e n c y o f the a l l e g a t i o n s -- M r . T a y l o r focuses i n this s e c t i o n on t h e f a c t s o f t h o s e c l a i m s . In h i s Rule 32 P e t i t i o n , M r . T a y l o r a l s o made e x t e n s i v e legal a r g u m e n t s b a s e d on t h e s e facts." (Taylor's b r i e f , Making a a t p . 41 n.9.) nonspecific arguments" i n the Rule 28(a)(10). Likewise, and and 32 p e t i t i o n only to does n o t comply w i t h to paragraphs of the those a r e aware that petition without c o u r t e r r e d when i t claims. a waiver to Rule l e g a l o r f a c t u a l argument a t a l l i n an a t t e m p t t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e c i r c u i t We legal T a y l o r makes o n l y g e n e r a l a l l e g a t i o n s p r e s e n t i n g any s u b s t a n t i v e dismissed "extensive i n many o f t h e a r g u m e n t s i n P a r t s I I I . C . III.D. of h i sb r i e f , refers reference those of arguments cases in a p p l i c a t i o n of Rule i n an a p p e l l a t e b r i e f which the 23 appellant 28(a)(10) has been presents to find limited general CR-05-0066 assertions relevant and p r o p o s i t i o n s legal authority, resulting of u n d e l i n e a t e d legal Alabama E.g., applied, Supreme Ex p a r t e 3d 572 James v. 3d 2 6, Slack State, [Ms. C r i m . App. So. So. 3d 0 3 - 1 9 0 2 , May and F r a n k l i n v. In [Ms. Scott v. Court S c o t t v. S t a t e , State, So. this 2010] So. 2d March 26, on 516 So. (Ala. 2010] remand from App. 2009] 2010); So. Baker 3d v. (Ala. [Ms. C R - 0 7 - 0 0 5 4 , O c t . 9, 2009); Bush v. [Ms. 3d So. 23 the [Ms. C R - 0 6 - 2 2 3 3 , M a r c h (Ala. Crim. 18, by be appropriate. So. 2 006)(opinion Lee v. S t a t e , State, when 988 CR-04-0395, Dec. i s to Comm'n v . E d w a r d s , 32 Stream, App. 2009] sufficient recently 1 0 9 0 3 9 3 , J u n e 30, ( A l a . C r i m . App. 29, applied this v. 3d CR-06-1723, 2009); by [Ms. (Ala. Crim. 2010] State, and been to i n an a r g u m e n t c o n s i s t i n g J e f f e r s o n County A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t ) ; o r no c i t a t i o n s Although Rule 28(a)(10) has Theodorou, ( A l a . 2009); few p r o p o s i t i o n s u n s u p p o r t e d by i t Court ( A l a . 2010); 2008); So. general a u t h o r i t y or argument. cautiously 3d of law w i t h ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2009); (Ala. Crim. 2008). 3d Court 694 State, App. 2009] stated: " ' R e c i t a t i o n o f a l l e g a t i o n s w i t h o u t c i t a t i o n t o any l e g a l a u t h o r i t y and w i t h o u t a d e q u a t e r e c i t a t i o n o f t h e f a c t s r e l i e d upon has b e e n deemed a w a i v e r o f the arguments l i s t e d . ' Hamm v . S t a t e , 913 S o . 2d 24 CR- CR-05-0066 4 6 0 , 486 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) . 'An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l consider only those issues p r o p e r l y d e l i n e a t e d as s u c h a n d w i l l n o t s e a r c h o u t e r r o r s w h i c h h a v e not been p r o p e r l y p r e s e r v e d or assigned. This standard has been s p e c i f i c a l l y a p p l i e d t o b r i e f s containing general propositions devoid of d e l i n e a t i o n and support from a u t h o r i t y o r argument.' Ex p a r t e Riley, 464 S o . 2 d 92 , 94 ( A l a . 1985) (citations omitted). 'When a n a p p e l l a n t f a i l s t o c i t e a n y a u t h o r i t y f o r an a r g u m e n t on a p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e , t h i s C o u r t may a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t a s t o t h a t issue, f o r i t i s n e i t h e r t h i s Court's duty nor i t s f u n c t i o n t o p e r f o r m an a p p e l l a n t ' s l e g a l r e s e a r c h . ' C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m v . B u s i n e s s R e a l t y I n v . C o . , 72 2 S o . 2 d 7 4 7 , 752 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . " Scott v. S t a t e , So. 3d a t 913 S o . 2 d 4 6 0 , 4 8 6 n . 1 1 federal counterpart United States '[W]e regularly arguments authorities. decline are 1369 (8th Cir.1996); F.2d 955, 255 F . 3 d 5 2 8 , 531 App. 2 0 0 2 ) ( " A p p l y i n g 2 8 , A l a . R . A p p . P., t h e summary cursory by United States ("Judges (8th Cir.2001)."). 25 legal 90 F . 3 d 1 3 6 3 , v. are not in briefs.").' to 233 F.3d 1 0 6 7 , S t a t e s v. Gonzales, see a l s o or citations S t a t e s v. Wadlington, buried the stated, (7th Cir.1991) for truffles State, consider to United Hamm v . f o r the Eighth C i r c u i t unsupported See U n i t e d (8thCir.2000); hunting ( A l a . Crim. of Appeals 1081 956 See a l s o t o Alabama's Rule Court that . U.S. Dunkel, like v. 927 pigs, Stuckey, CR-05-0066 As the State correctly argues many " a r g u m e n t s " i n T a y l o r ' s b r i e f a cursory of his summary o f t h e c l a i m s a few o f T a y l o r ' s brief complete are quoted below "(g) Claim IV.B.6 i n i t s brief c o n s i s t of l i t t l e from the p e t i t i o n . arguments on i s s u e s forillustrative on appeal, more Examples raised i n purposes: [of the p e t i t i o n ] "Dismissed claim IV.B.6 alleges that trial counsel's failure to contemporaneously object to numerous t r i a l e r r o r s d e p r i v e d Mr. T a y l o r o f a f a i r and r e l i a b l e t r i a l a n d an e f f e c t i v e a p p e a l . Claim I V . B . 6 l i s t s many s p e c i f i c e r r o r s t o w h i c h trial c o u n s e l s h o u l d have o b j e c t e d . (C. 9 1 5 . ) I t a l l e g e s in detail grounds f o r r e l i e f and t h e u n d e r l y i n g facts." (Taylor's brief, "(h) a t pp. 54-55.) Claim IV.B.9 [of the p e t i t i o n ] "Dismissed claim IV.B.9 alleges that trial c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e i n p a r t b e c a u s e o f g r o s s l y inadequate compensation. C l a i m IV.B.9 s e t s forth the statutory maximum compensation that court-appointed attorneys i n capital cases could have e a r n e d a t t h e t i m e o f Mr. T a y l o r ' s t r i a l a n d t h e n p r o v i d e s s u b s t a n t i a l c a s e l a w t o show t h a t t h i s l e v e l was i n a d e q u a t e . (C. 9 1 8 - 9 1 9 . ) C l a i m IV.B.9 is well-pleaded." (Taylor's brief, "(a) a t p . 55.) Claim VI.A [of the p e t i t i o n ] " C l a i m V I . A a l l e g e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t was legally disqualified from presiding over Mr. Taylor's t r i a l . Claim VI.A presents the s p e c i f i c 26 than CR-05-0066 fact that the trial j u d g e had received campaign c o n t r i b u t i o n s f r o m Mr. T a y l o r ' s own a t t o r n e y s i n t h e amount of $1000. (C. 937.) C l a i m VI.A cites to A l a b a m a l a w t o show why t h e s e c o n t r i b u t i o n s r e q u i r e d the t r i a l judge to recuse h i m s e l f . (C. 9 3 7 - 9 3 9 . ) Claim VI.A alleges grounds for relief and the underlying facts." (Taylor's brief, "(b) at Claim pp. 56-57.) VI.B [of the petition] "Claim VI.B. alleges that Mr. Taylor's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s w e r e v i o l a t e d i n a s m u c h as he was t r i e d a n d s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h b y an e l e c t e d j u d g e in t h e m i d s t o f an e l e c t e d c a m p a i g n . Here, Mr. Taylor s t a r t s from the bedrock l e g a l p r o p o s i t i o n that a defendant i s e n t i t l e d to a f a i r t r i a l before an i m p a r t i a l j u d g e . He t h e n p r e s e n t s s e v e r a l p a g e s of factual assertions as t o why elected judges c a n n o t be impartial. (C. 940-946.) Claim VI.B alleges grounds for relief and the underlying facts." (Taylor's brief, at p. 57.) "Claim VII.D a l l e g e s t h a t the State apparently failed to comply w i t h i t s discovery obligations u n d e r B r a d y v . M a r y l a n d , 373 U.S. 83 ( 1 9 6 3 ) . Claim VII.D lists several pieces of exculpatory and impeachment evidence that the State apparently failed to provide to Mr. Taylor, including disciplinary or investigative records of a testifying detective and s t a t e m e n t s made b y key witnesses, including Mr. Taylor's co-defendant. Thus, C l a i m V I I . D a l l e g e s g r o u n d s f o r r e l i e f and t h e underlying facts. (C. 9 5 2 - 9 5 3 . ) " (Taylor's brief, "(d) at Claim p. 58.) III.C [of the 27 petition] CR-05-0066 "Claim III.C a l l e g e s that the death penalty i s unconstitutional in light of i t s unreliable application. (C. 8 5 0 - 8 5 2 . ) In support of t h i s c l a i m , Mr. T a y l o r a l l e g e s s i g n i f i c a n t reliability problems with the a p p l i c a t i o n of the death penalty i n A l a b a m a , i n c l u d i n g a 68% e r r o r r a t e . (C. 8 5 0 . ) A t a minimum, t h e u n r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y presents a m a t e r i a l issue of law." (Taylor's brief, "(p) a t p. Claim 61.) IV.B.7 [of the p e t i t i o n ] "Claim IV.B.7 alleges that trial counsel's failure t o a d e q u a t e l y p u r s u e a m o t i o n f o r a new trial undermined the r e l i a b i l i t y o f Mr. Taylor's conviction. (C. 9 1 5 - 9 1 7 . ) T h i s a l l e g a t i o n makes clear that trial counsel's failure to fully i n v e s t i g a t e and p r e p a r e f o r t h e h e a r i n g d e p r i v e d Mr. Taylor o f an o p p o r t u n i t y t o show c o e r c i o n of a witness favorable t o Mr. T a y l o r . This presents m a t e r i a l issues of law." (Taylor's brief, "(b) a t p. Claim 71.) VII.C [of the p e t i t i o n ] " C l a i m V I I . C a l l e g e s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e as t o t h e 'heinous, atrocious or cruel' aggravator was insufficient as a m a t t e r o f l a w . (C. 9 4 9 - 9 5 2 . ) T h i s a l l e g a t i o n i s s u p p o r t e d by n e a r l y f o u r pages o f legal argument supported by facts and presents m a t e r i a l issues of law." (Taylor's In circuit not brief, Part III.C.2(e) court binding a t p. 74.) of the b r i e f , Taylor cited only to a c a s e , w h i c h h a s no p r e c e d e n t i a l a u t h o r i t y a n d i s on t h i s Court. (Taylor's 28 brief, a t pp. 50-51.) CR-05-0066 Clearly, Taylor's the p e t i t i o n -- w i t h cursory summary o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f a citation only to the paragraphs petition i n many a r g u m e n t s o f t h e b r i e f , of brief the undelineated with Rule brief, in dismissal Accordingly, listed Rule an we review below, of the that i n this that the does of the issues fail demonstrating specific Taylor Court has waived those t o comply raised i n the or the law the was circuit in error. f o r purposes of arguments with and not comport why claims portions petition no d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e f a c t s argument hold of o f l a w -- F o r many presents of paragraphs principles 28 (a) (10) . t h e form appellate to general Taylor court's only and i n o t h e r of the in his brief, the requirements of 28(a)(10): III.C.1 -- d e a t h III.C.2(a)-(h); ineffective III.C.3(a); injection; III.D.2(a)-(r); and assistance of counsel; III.D.3(a)-(b) III.C.4(a)-(c) III.C.5 by l e t h a l III.D.3(b) -¬ -- t h e j u r y was n o t i m p a r t i a l ; -- t h e j u d g e was n o t i m p a r t i a l ; -- p r o s e c u t o r i a l m i s c o n d u c t ; III.D.1(c) a n d (e) -p e n a l t y ; and III.D.4(a)-(d) at trial. constitutionality -- c a p i t a l sentencing, 29 voir of the dire, death rulings CR-05-0066 Moreover, having reviewed with case, e v e n i f we h a d a d d r e s s e d w h a t we u n d e r s t a n d t o h a v e b e e n arguments nonetheless those Taylor required by Rule barred Issues App. We provided circuit alleging court or and the failed Court, we would d i s m i s s a l of each of correctly determined that remaining to state with Rule allegations a claim were f o r which granted. below those at least minimally to this 28(a)(10), A l a . R. III.D.1(a) court erred that issues sufficient f o r which Taylor has a u t h o r i t y and argument Court. Ring/Apprendi unconstitutional says, this court's i n Compliance address In p a r t to i n this P. hisbrief 1. he 32, was d u e t o b e C. in circuit and t h e r e c o r d t o p l e a d many o f t h e c l a i m s w i t h t h e s p e c i f i c i t y procedurally relief the c i r c u i t The failed orders i n his brief affirm claims. court's -¬ along Taylor's the c i r c u i t Taylor's p e t i t i o n thoroughly claim of h i s b r i e f , when Taylor i t summarily Alabama's on i t s f a c e the statute gives make f a c t - f i n d i n g s on w h i c h argues dismissed capital-murder that the the statute claim i s and as a p p l i e d t o h i m , b e c a u s e , judges and n o t j u r i e s the death penalty 30 t h e power t o i s predicated, CR-05-0066 and t h a t i t v i o l a t e s R i n g v . A r i z o n a , 536 Apprendi States fact v. New Jersey, Supreme C o u r t of a prior for a m u s t be submitted death-penalty The it entitle First, the beyond to a jury, at cases 490. Taylor "[o]ther prescribed court correctly to relief. the the beyond a was dismissed this maximum reasonable extended claim i s s u e of law or f a c t Rule Supreme Court 32.7(d), has scheme i s n o t Ex p a r t e W a l d r o p , see a l s o V a n p e l t v. S t a t e , 3d United than statutory holding and increases that proved The Ala. R. determined that unconstitutional 859 So. 2d 1181 [Ms. C R - 0 6 - 1 5 3 9 , D e c . (Ala. Crim. App. 2009); 907 (Ala. Crim. App. that because Ring -- Sharifi would Crim. P. because Alabama's under Ring ( A l a . 2002); 18, 2 0 0 9 ] 2009). Second, and to because the c i r c u i t c o u r t c o r r e c t l y d i s m i s s e d the c l a i m and A p p r e n d i . 2d (2002), i n Ring. capital-sentencing So. fact This 584 (2000). held that and to present a m a t e r i a l Alabama So. 466 any the U.S. circuit fails i n Apprendi crime 530 U.S. conviction, penalty doubt." 530 U.S. announcing a v. State, procedural 993 rule r a t h e r t h a n a s u b s t a n t i v e r u l e -- d o e s n o t a p p l y retroactively to Taylor postconviction cases, i t does 31 not apply to whose CR-05-0066 c o n v i c t i o n became v. State, also final before Ring 913 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 3 , 1 1 4 6 Hall v. State, 97 9 So. are not a p p l i e d r e t r o a c t i v e l y The circuit court's regarding the sentencing scheme (Ala. Crim. 2d 2007), and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n was d e c i d e d . 125, App. 2 0 0 3 ) . ( A l a . Crim. 177 See App. ( h o l d i n g t h a t A p p r e n d i and t o c a s e s on c o l l a t e r a l summary dismissal constitutionality was, E.g., Boyd 6 of therefore, correct review). of Taylor's Alabama's and Ring claim capital- i s due to be affirmed. 2. Arbitrary imposition In p a r t circuit which court he arbitrary sentencing reason U.S. III.D.1(b) jury's Taylor penalty argues i t summarily dismissed Alabama's capital of the death penalty that the the claims i n statute permits the b e c a u s e , he s a y s , a j u d g e may d i s r e g a r d a j u r y ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n f o r a n y (1972). Alabama's c a p i t a l a that imposition o r f o r no 238 of h i s b r i e f , e r r e d when alleged of the death reason at a l l . See Furman v . G e o r g i a , To t h e e x t e n t Taylor's statute allows the standardless sentencing recommendation, claims results 408 are that the override of i n the arbitrary T a y l o r ' s p e t i t i o n f o r c e r t i o r a r i r e v i e w was p e n d i n g i n t h e A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t w h e n A p p r e n d i was d e c i d e d , a n d t h e c e r t i f i c a t e o f j u d g m e n t was i s s u e d a n d t h e c a s e b e c a m e f i n a l a f t e r A p p r e n d i was d e c i d e d , b u t b e f o r e R i n g was decided. 6 32 CR-05-0066 i m p o s i t i o n of the death of appellate trial review, b u t were dismissed Additionally, by this Crim. Taylor Supreme C o u r t 1215 and reason. circuit Court for were Rule court may and could the c i r c u i t on Rule v. State, were to be 32.2(a)(4), d i d not apply affirm any r e a s o n . court 808 also the c i r c u i t dismissed E.g., Lee v. S t a t e , correctly P. ruling appeal 1190 ( A l a . 808 Alabama So. 2d procedurally for this Crim. on the were procedural-bar court's 33 by Taylor, the claims this r a i s e d at grounds. So. 2d 1148, considered A l a . R. standard 32.2(a)(3) were r a i s e d and a d d r e s s e d Therefore, due f o r no have been and were r e j e c t e d , Ex p a r t e ( A l a . 2001). barred claims claims 2000), and p r o v i d e s Therefore, the claims Court, App. these not. the sentence, additional Although the ground, this i f i t i s correct [Ms. C R - 0 7 - 0 0 5 4 , O c t . 9, CR-05-0066 200 9] So. 3d on these App. c l a i m s of 2 0 0 9 ). 7 Taylor is entitled t o no As National Services the Alabama Supreme Court explained in Liberty L i f e I n s u r a n c e Co. v . U n i v e r s i t y o f A l a b a m a H e a l t h F o u n d a t i o n , P.C., 881 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 3 ( A l a . 2003): 7 relief (Ala. Crim. error. "Nonetheless, t h i s Court w i l l a f f i r m the t r i a l c o u r t on a n y v a l i d l e g a l g r o u n d p r e s e n t e d b y the record, r e g a r d l e s s of whether that ground was c o n s i d e r e d , o r e v e n i f i t was r e j e c t e d , b y t h e t r i a l court. E x p a r t e R y a l s , 773 S o . 2 d 1011 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , c i t i n g E x p a r t e W i g i n t o n , 743 So. 2d 1071 (Ala. 1 9 9 9 ) , a n d S m i t h v . E q u i f a x S e r v s . , I n c . , 537 S o . 2 d 463 ( A l a . 1988) . This rule f a i l s i n application only where due-process constraints require some n o t i c e a t t h e t r i a l l e v e l , w h i c h was o m i t t e d , o f t h e b a s i s t h a t w o u l d o t h e r w i s e s u p p o r t an a f f i r m a n c e , s u c h as when a t o t a l l y o m i t t e d a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e might, i f a v a i l a b l e f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , s u f f i c e to affirm a judgment, Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. B e n t l e y , 851 S o . 2 d 458 ( A l a . 2002), or where a summary-judgment movant has n o t a s s e r t e d b e f o r e the t r i a l c o u r t a f a i l u r e o f t h e n o n m o v a n t ' s e v i d e n c e on an e l e m e n t o f a c l a i m o r d e f e n s e and t h e r e f o r e has not shifted the burden of producing substantial evidence i n support of that element, Rector v. B e t t e r H o u s e s , I n c . , 820 S o . 2 d 7 5 , 80 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ( q u o t i n g C e l o t e x Corp. v. C a t r e t t , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2 5 4 8 , 91 L . E d . 2 d 265 (1986), and Kennedy v. W e s t e r n S i z z l i n C o r p . , 857 So. 2d 71 (Ala. 2003))." 881 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 2 0 . None o f t h e l i m i t a t i o n s t o a f f i r m i n g a t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t on g r o u n d s d i f f e r e n t t h a n t h o s e f o u n d by the t r i a l c o u r t are p r e s e n t h e r e . 34 CR-05-0066 3. Method In of execution claim III.D.1(d) circuit of h i s b r i e f , c o u r t e r r e d when i t d i s m i s s e d death by electrocution punishment i n v i o l a t i o n States Constitution, (1958), and S t a t e circuit raised and v. Mata, appeal. court correctly affirm 1203 on Rule and that unusual Dulles, trial, U.S. 86 (Neb. 2 0 0 8 ) . The that i tcould have but The c i r c u i t 356 was not. Rule court also held that b e c a u s e i t was r a i s e d a n d a d d r e s s e d t h e c l a i m on t h o s e See T a y l o r v. S t a t e , App. 2 0 0 0 ) ( a d d r e s s i n g the c i r c u i t 32.7(d) v. 3 2 . 2 ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. C r i m . i t s judgment. Furthermore, at P. dismissed (Ala. Crim. Trop 745 N.W.2d 2 2 9 addressed Rule cruel the claim, finding 3 2 . 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C r i m . direct that the the claim a l l e g i n g constitutes citing t h e c l a i m was p r e c l u d e d argues o f t h e E i g h t h Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d court dismissed been Taylor court grounds; The circuit grounds, a n d we 808 S o . 2 d 1 1 4 8 , electrocution claim). correctly because P. dismissed t h e Alabama the claim Legislature amended t h e s t a t u t e p r o v i d i n g f o r t h e m e t h o d o f e x e c u t i o n s because lethal the primary injection, argument about § method of execution 15-18-82(a), i n Alabama A l a . Code e l e c t r o c u t i o n i s now m o o t . 35 on 1975, and i s now Taylor's E.g., Johnson v. CR-05-0066 State, Crim. [Ms. C R - 9 9 - 1 3 4 9 , App. 4. Part circuit petition he says, element III.E. of on R u l e each his brief of also those counsel's alleges claims claims Taylor that (Ala. argues at t r i a l cites that substantive claims grounds alleged 8 an integral assistance of counsel. failure to raise was e x c u s e d b y We with disagree legal from because, o r on a p p e a l no the as the purported p r o p o s i t i o n -- t h a t subject was of i n e f f e c t i v e ineffectiveness. First, Taylor 32.2(a) p r o c e d u r a l - b a r of h i s claim substantive not So. 3d claims c o u r t e r r e d when i t d i s m i s s e d his first 2009] 2009). Procedurally barred In Taylor O c t . 2, both authority a substantive claim t o d i s m i s s a l on p r o c e d u r a l - b a r the prior arguments. regarding his for relief i s g r o u n d s when that s u b s t a n t i v e c l a i m i s a l s o an e l e m e n t o f a c l a i m o f ineffective assistance such of counsel -- and we know of no legal T a y l o r l i s t s i n f o o t n o t e 10 o f h i s b r i e f t h e c l a i m s t h a t he says the c i r c u i t court dismissed on Rule 32.2(a) procedural-bar grounds. Two o f t h e c l a i m s f r o m t h e p e t i t i o n T a y l o r has l i s t e d -- C l a i m s IV.B. and V I I . D . - were n o t d i s m i s s e d b y t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t on p r o c e d u r a l - b a r g r o u n d s (C. 1 4 6 3 - 6 7 ) , s o we do n o t c o n s i d e r t h e m h e r e . Other claims that w e r e d i s m i s s e d b y t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t on p r o c e d u r a l - b a r g r o u n d s b u t w e r e n o t l i s t e d b y T a y l o r i n h i s a r g u m e n t on t h i s i s s u e -¬ C l a i m s V I I . A . - C., E . , a n d F. o f t h e p e t i t i o n -- a r e d e e m e d a b a n d o n e d a n d w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d . 8 36 CR-05-0066 a u t h o r i t y to support that separate ineffective substantive assistance procedural-bar 794 Second, App. that any i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the circuit least, for the E.g., may 477 claim of dismissed State, Carrier, i t is clear a be Hooks v. procedural trial should conducted a hearing default. contrary, underlying counsel M u r r a y v. the court the on 21 So. 3d exception procedural to and have U.S. d e f a u l t was appellate excused t o a l l o w him A l a b a m a has prejudice" the the and default to demonstrate application of the the (1986), result counsel never recognized the 478 or, 913 So. 2d at 493. 37 that at "cause and Rule 32 "Although i n f e d e r a l c o u r t a habeas p e t i t i o n e r can a l l e g e t h a t the i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of counsel was 'cause and p r e j u d i c e ' t o e x c u s e a procedural d e f a u l t , e . g . , M u r r a y v . C a r r i e r , 477 U.S. 478, 488, (1986), Alabama state courts in postconviction p r o c e e d i n g s do n o t r e c o g n i z e t h e c a u s e a n d p r e j u d i c e exception. We r e c e n t l y s t a t e d , ' A l a b a m a h a s never r e c o g n i z e d any e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e p r o c e d u r a l d e f a u l t g r o u n d s c o n t a i n e d i n R u l e 32, A l a . R . C r i m . P . We h a v e r e p e a t e d l y s t a t e d t h a t the p r o c e d u r a l bars i n Rule 32 a p p l y e q u a l l y t o a l l c a s e s , i n c l u d i n g t h o s e i n w h i c h t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y has been i m p o s e d . ' Hooks v. S t a t e , 822 So. 2d 4 7 6 , 481 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000)." State, of grounds bars: Hamm v . 772, 2008). quoting argues To claims of grounds. (Ala. Crim. Taylor that claim. CR-05-0066 Therefore, following we a f f i r m t h e c i r c u i t claims Claim Taylor lists court's d i s m i s s a l ofthe i n h i sbrief on appeal: I I I . A . - D. -- c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y death-penalty statute; Claim V.A. a n d B. -- r i g h t Claim V I . A . - C. -- r i g h t of Alabama's t o an i m p a r t i a l j u r y ; t o an i m p a r t i a l t r i a l court. Conclusion For the reasons explained i n Part cause i s remanded t o t h e c i r c u i t claims that orders the p a r t i e s agreed of partial opportunity establish shall that take and a l l necessary within We issues to this 90 d a y s affirm Taylor i s entitled to relief. the c i r c u i t I N PART; of this REVERSED on and t o court the c i r c u i t clerk possible time opinion. judgment i n h i sbrief to the claims at the e a r l i e s t court's by t h e The c i r c u i t a c t i o n t o see t h a t Court this f o r r e s o l u t i o n of those had n o t been d i s m i s s e d of the release r a i s e d by Taylor AFFIRMED opinion, the a l l e g a t i o n s i n those he i s e n t i t l e d makes due r e t u r n court dismissal; to prove I of this as t o remaining appeal. I N PART; AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Wise, P.J., a n d Windom, K e l l u m , 38 and Main, J J . , concur.

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.