Willie Earl Scott v. State of Alabama
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 03/26/2010 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-06-2233 Willie Earl Scott 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 Court (CC-00-840.60; CC-00-841.60; CC-00-842.60) On R e t u r n t o Remand MAIN, J u d g e . Willie dismissal Earl Scott of h i s Rule postconviction relief, appeals the c i r c u i t court's summary 32, A l a . R . C r i m . P . , petition for challenging capital-murder his CR-06-2233 c o n v i c t i o n s f o r two c o u n t s o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r and h i s r e s u l t i n g s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h ; and h i s c o n v i c t i o n s f o r f i r s t - d e g r e e r a p e , a t t e m p t e d m u r d e r , and f i r s t - d e g r e e b u r g l a r y , and h i s r e s u l t i n g sentences of l i f e imprisonment f o r each of those c o n v i c t i o n s . On A u g u s t 16, capital murder murder was rape, see 2002, S c o t t was for k i l l i n g made c a p i t a l c o n v i c t e d o f two 10-year-old because Latonya i t was under the Code 1975. age S c o t t was o f 14, see Sager. committed § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 3 ) , A l a . Code 1975, v i c t i m was counts and The during because § 13A-5-40(a)(15), also convicted, Ala. f o r events i n v o l v i n g a first-degree burglary. A f t e r a sentencing recommended, by of death for his accepted death the for his 10-2, capital-murder jury's capital-murder each of the n o n - c a p i t a l On trial order. d i r e c t appeal, this and 27, be The The terms of l i f e the and jury sentenced trial sentenced convictions. court Scott trial to to court imprisonment convictions. Court remanded t h e c o u r t to c o r r e c t a d e f i c i e n c y i n the On May hearing, Scott convictions. also sentenced Scott to consecutive for that recommendation a the d i f f e r e n t v i c t i m , of f i r s t - d e g r e e rape, a t t e m p t e d murder, a vote of case the capital-sentencing 2005, t h i s C o u r t a f f i r m e d S c o t t ' s 2 for capital- CR-06-2233 murder See c o n v i c t i o n s and d e a t h S c o t t v. S t a t e , 2005) 937 sentence on So. 2d 1065, return 1088 ( o p i n i o n on r e t u r n t o r e m a n d ) . to remand. ( A l a . Crim. App. On S e p t e m b e r 16, 2005, t h i s Court overruled Scott's a p p l i c a t i o n f o r rehearing. petitioned and t h e Alabama on F e b r u a r y Scott's Scott 17, 2006, petition Supreme review. Court certiorari. On of c e r t i o r a r i . States October On 2, Scott's 2006, filed a 2007, Rule 32, Scott, with Court the United petition for Ala.R.Crim.P., the 841 the of 2007, S c o t t f i l e d documents, a motion seeking i n c l u d i n g records for States writ of (2006). assistance petition J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t , a s s e r t i n g a number o f c l a i m s . 11, denied Thereafter, Supreme See S c o t t v. A l a b a m a , 549 U.S. 15, review, Supreme C o u r t United denied February counsel, the for certiorari t h e Alabama f o r the w r i t petitioned certiorari Supreme C o u r t Scott of i n the On May d i s c o v e r y o f a number pertaining to himself, the v i c t i m s , and a s s o r t e d f a m i l y members o f t h e v i c t i m s ' ; r e c o r d s pertaining to assorted physical evidence; and p e r t a i n i n g to the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the offenses. 2007, the State filed c h a l l e n g i n g the claims an answer to Scott's documents On May 29, petition, i n S c o t t ' s p e t i t i o n on p r e c l u s i o n a r y , 3 CR-06-2233 pleading, State the and e v i d e n t i a r y grounds. and S c o t t circuit either court party pleading filed to update the parties provide any additional 20, 2007, requesting i f the court the that wanted information; the f u r t h e r i n d i c a t e d that the State a n t i c i p a t e d f i l i n g would thereafter." the p e t i t i o n " l a t e r respond to (C. 396.) issued a w r i t t e n order 2007, filed motion to year" and dismiss that "soon the c i r c u i t court summarily denying Scott's p e t i t i o n and e v i d e n t i a r y g r o u n d s . a motion d e n i a l o f h i s p e t i t i o n and a m o t i o n o b j e c t i n g t o t h e circuit the State's denying the p e t i t i o n . On September denied Scott's to reconsider. notice of motion appeal on reconsider August summary e s s e n t i a l l y adopting to On on the court's Scott the this On J u l y 30, 2007, preclusionary, pleading, 10, status July advise a motion to dismiss Scott a joint On September followed. 4 answer as i t s o r d e r 5, 2007, t h e c i r c u i t 5, Scott 2007, filed and this a court timely appeal CR-06-2233 S c o t t r e a r g u e s most o f t h e challenges first grounds. argues 1 that the s u m m a r i l y d e n y i n g h i s R u l e 32 circuit petition even c o n s i d e r i n g g r a n t i n g S c o t t l e a v e In Ex parte Rhone, 900 A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h e l d may and t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s summary d e n i a l on v a r i o u s p r o c e d u r a l Scott claims from h i s p e t i t i o n be p e r m i t t e d a t any e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t . " ' 900 So. 2d court without erred in granting, or t o amend t h e 455 (Ala. petition. 2004), t h a t '"[a]mendments t o the pleadings stage of the p r o c e e d i n g s p r i o r t o So. 2d a t 457, the quoting Rule 32.7(b), A l a . R . C r i m . P . ( f i r s t emphasis o r i g i n a l ; second emphasis added). However, n o t h i n g i n Ex p a r t e Rhone, i t s p r o g e n y , o r t h e cases S c o t t does n o t r e a r g u e t h e f o l l o w i n g c l a i m s a s s e r t e d i n h i s p e t i t i o n : t h a t a number o f comments by t h e p r o s e c u t o r a t v a r i o u s s t a g e s o f t h e t r i a l were i m p r o p e r ; t h a t c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e a t the p e n a l t y phase f o r not s e e k i n g a second c o m p e t e n c y h e a r i n g ; and t h a t a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e f o r n o t a r g u i n g on a p p e a l t h a t S c o t t was n o t c o m p e t e n t t o s t a n d t r i a l and t h a t he was e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f b a s e d upon p r o s e c u t o r i a l m i s c o n d u c t . Those c l a i m s S c o t t p r e s e n t e d i n h i s p e t i t i o n s b u t does n o t p u r s u e on a p p e a l a r e deemed t o be abandoned. See, e.g., B r o w n l e e v. S t a t e , 666 So. 2d 91, 93 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1995) ("We w i l l n o t r e v i e w i s s u e s n o t l i s t e d and a r g u e d i n b r i e f . " ) . 1 5 CR-06-2233 c i t e d t h e r e i n , i m p o s e s any d u t y on t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o g r a n t l e a v e t o amend a p e t i t i o n a f t e r t h e e n t r y o f a j u d g m e n t on t h e petition. Here, petition until summarily Scott d i d not request a f t e r the c i r c u i t denying the p e t i t i o n . leave t o amend t h e c o u r t had e n t e r e d Thus, i t s order the c i r c u i t court's summary d e n i a l o f t h e p e t i t i o n i n t h i s c a s e does n o t c o n f l i c t with the holding i n Ex authority cited i n Scott's parte Rhone or the other legal brief. B. Scott a l s o opines t h a t h i s amendment was f i l e d a f t e r t h e j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d b e c a u s e he l o g i c a l l y w a i t e d t o amend h i s p e t i t i o n u n t i l he r e c e i v e d t h e d i s c o v e r y he r e q u e s t e d . Scott challenges the c i r c u i t court's statement i n i t s order his motion to reconsider the d e n i a l of h i s p e t i t i o n " S c o t t was n o t e n t i t l e d t o any d i s c o v e r y . " cites Ex p a r t e proposition debatable." Land, that 775 So. 2d 847 "[t]he right (Scott's b r i e f to a t p. denying (C. 467.) ( A l a . 2000), seek 14.) Scott f o r the discovery Although that i s not Scott i s c o r r e c t t h a t a p e t i t i o n e r may s e e k d i s c o v e r y i n p o s t c o n v i c t i o n proceedings, t h e r e i s no a b s o l u t e r i g h t t o d i s c o v e r y . as t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d i n Ex p a r t e 6 Land: Rather, CR-06-2233 "We emphasize that this holding -that p o s t c o n v i c t i o n d i s c o v e r y m o t i o n s a r e t o be j u d g e d b y a good-cause s t a n d a r d -- does n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y a l l o w d i s c o v e r y u n d e r R u l e 32, A l a . R . C r i m . P . , a n d t h a t i t does n o t e x p a n d t h e d i s c o v e r y p r o c e d u r e s w i t h i n R u l e 32.4. A c c o r d [ S t a t e v.] L e w i s , [656 So. 2d 1248,] 1250 [ ( F l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ] , w h e r e i n t h e F l o r i d a Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t t h e g o o d - c a u s e standard did not affect Florida's rules relating to p o s t c o n v i c t i o n procedure, which are s i m i l a r t o ours. By a d o p t i n g t h i s s t a n d a r d , we a r e o n l y r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t , upon a p e t i t i o n e r ' s s h o w i n g o f good c a u s e , may e x e r c i s e i t s i n h e r e n t a u t h o r i t y t o order discovery i n a proceeding f o r p o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f . I n a d d i t i o n , we c a u t i o n t h a t p o s t c o n v i c t i o n d i s c o v e r y does n o t p r o v i d e a p e t i t i o n e r w i t h a r i g h t t o ' f i s h ' t h r o u g h o f f i c i a l f i l e s and t h a t i t ' i s n o t a device f o r i n v e s t i g a t i n g possible claims, but a means o f v i n d i c a t i n g a c t u a l c l a i m s . ' P e o p l e v. G o n z a l e z , 51 C a l . 3d 1179, 1260, 800 P.2d 1159, 1206, 275 C a l . R p t r . 729, 776 ( 1 9 9 0 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 502 U.S. 835, 112 S . C t . 117, 116 L.Ed.2d 85 ( 1 9 9 1 ) . " 775 So. 2d a t 852. in postconviction actually request Thus, as t h e r e 2 proceedings, leave i s no r i g h t t o d i s c o v e r y and, because t o amend t h e p e t i t i o n Scott d i d not or n o t i f y the c i r c u i t c o u r t t h a t he w a n t e d t o amend t h e p e t i t i o n u n t i l a f t e r j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d , his S c o t t ' s argument t h a t he was w i t h h o l d i n g amendment p e n d i n g d i s c o v e r y i s not well-taken. S c o t t does n o t a r g u e on a p p e a l t h a t erred i n denying h i s discovery request. 2 7 the c i r c u i t court CR-06-2233 Scott summarily filed further asserts denying 2007, pleading the c i r c u i t the p e t i t i o n a motion to dismiss Initially, that we note was when court the State erred i n had not y e t the p e t i t i o n . that styled although as an the State's "answer" to the r a t h e r than a "motion t o d i s m i s s " the p e t i t i o n , May 29, petition the pleading c l e a r l y a d v o c a t e d a n d s o u g h t summary d i s m i s s a l o f t h e m a j o r i t y of S c o t t ' s c l a i m s . point, Rule "[i]f the I n any e v e n t , 3 32.7(d), court sufficiently and w i t h o u t Ala.R.Crim.P., determines specific, that clearly the or i s precluded, belaboring the provides petition or f a i l s is entitle the p e t i t i o n e r to r e l i e f not to state 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 o r l a w e x i s t s would that which the court may e i t h e r d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n o r g r a n t l e a v e t o f i l e an amended petition." receive a T h e r e i s no r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a c i r c u i t c o u r t e v e n response or a motion to dismiss from the State T h e S t a t e r e p e a t e d l y a s s e r t e d t h a t S c o t t ' s c l a i m s were b a r r e d , were n o t p l e a d e d , o r d i d n o t r a i s e a c l a i m upon w h i c h r e l i e f c o u l d be g r a n t e d . Further, the State averred i n i t s a n s w e r t h a t " S c o t t i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o e i t h e r an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g o r r e l i e f " on t h o s e c l a i m s i n h i s p e t i t i o n t h a t were p r o c e d u r a l l y barred or i n s u f f i c i e n t l y pleaded. (C. 387.) 3 8 CR-06-2233 before summarily denying a Rule 32 p e t i t i o n . See B i s h o p v. S t a t e , 608 So. 2d 345, 347-48 ( A l a . 1992) ( h o l d i n g t h a t where a s i m p l e r e a d i n g o f a p e t i t i o n f o r p o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f shows t h a t , a s s u m i n g e v e r y a l l e g a t i o n o f t h e p e t i t i o n t o be t r u e , i t i s obviously without may summarily merit or i s precluded, dismiss that petition response from the d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y ) . discussed Scott's more fully i n Part claims were precluded, f a c i a l l y without the the c i r c u i t court without requiring a Thus, f o r t h e r e a s o n s I I I of t h i s opinion, insufficiently because pleaded or m e r i t , we do n o t f i n d e r r o r i n t h e t i m i n g o f c i r c u i t court's summary d e n i a l o f t h e p e t i t i o n . II. Scott next challenges State's The the c i r c u i t court's adoption a n s w e r as i t s o r d e r wholesale of the summarily denying h i s p e t i t i o n . adoption of orders proposed by the p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i s r e v i e w e d on a c a s e - b y - c a s e b a s i s a n d h a s been r e p e a t e d l y u p h e l d u n l e s s t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s s e t out i n the order are clearly erroneous. r e c e n t l y s t a t e d i n Hodges v. S t a t e , 2007] So. 3d As this [Ms. CR-04-1226, M a r c h 23, ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 7 ) : "'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 9 Court CR-06-2233 o r d e r . 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 a r e numerous f a c t u a l and l e g a l e r r o r s i n t h e o r d e r t h a t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e o r d e r 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 a d o p t i n g 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 p o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f . See, e.g., C o r a l v. S t a t e , 900 So. 2d 1274, 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 , Ex p a r t e J e n k i n s , 972 So. 2d 159 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , and t h e c a s e s 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 and t h e y may be 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).' "[Hyde v. C r i m . App. S t a t e , ] 950 2006)]. So. 2d [344] at 371 [(Ala. "Thus, e v e n when a c i r c u i t c o u r t a d o p t s 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 and 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 by t h e S t a t e . " So. Oct. 3d a t 9, 2009] State, circuit 991 So. court's . See So. 2d a l s o Lee 3d 313 v. State, ( A l a . C r i m . App. ( A l a . Crim. findings and 10 App. conclusions [Ms. CR-07-0054, 2 0 0 9 ) ; McNabb v. 2007). are Here, not the clearly CR-06-2233 erroneous. this Therefore, S c o t t i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o any r e l i e f on claim. III. Scott argues improper. that He c l a i m s summary denial that the c i r c u i t a number o f h i s c l a i m s an i n c o r r e c t s t a n d a r d of h i s p e t i t i o n court improperly t o be i n s u f f i c i e n t l y p l e a d e d , of review was found applied t o a number o f h i s c l a i m s , and improperly applied procedural addressing t h e m e r i t s o f S c o t t ' s s p e c i f i c c l a i m s , we n o t e t h e following general bars to c e r t a i n claims. p r i n c i p l e s of law. R u l e 32.3, A l a . R . C r i m . P . , s t a t e s t h a t shall have the Before burden of pleading "[t]he p e t i t i o n e r and proving by a preponderance of the evidence the f a c t s necessary t o e n t i t l e the petitioner to r e l i e f . " Rule 32.6(b), Ala.R.Crim.P., s t a t e s t h a t " [ t ] h e p e t i t i o n must 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 including full grounds. been grounds disclosure upon of and mere which the A bare a l l e g a t i o n that violated sufficient the factual is basis sought, of those a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t has conclusions t o w a r r a n t any f u r t h e r relief of law shall not proceedings." "An e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on a [ 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 11 be CR-06-2233 face.' Ex p a r t e B o a t w r i g h t , 471 So. 2d 1257 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . A 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 f a c e ' o n l y 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 s t a t e m e n t o f t h e g r o u n d s upon w h i c h r e l i e f i s s o u g h t , i n c l u d i n g f u l l d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e f a c t s r e l i e d upon (as o p p o s e d t o a g e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t 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 of those facts) sufficient t o show t h a t the 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 f a c t s are true. Ex p a r t e B o a t w r i g h t , s u p r a ; Ex p a r t e C l i s b y , 501 So. 2d 483 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . " Moore v. S t a t e , 502 So. 2d 819, 820 ( A l a . 1986) . A petitioner b e a r s no b u r d e n o f " p r o v i n g " h i s c l a i m s a t t h e p l e a d i n g s t a g e . See F o r d v. S t a t e , 831 So. 2d 641 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 1 ) . As t h i s C o u r t n o t e d i n B o y d v. S t a t e , 913 So. 2d 1113 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003): " ' R u l e 32.6(b) r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e 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 So. 2d 364, 406 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999). I n o t h e r 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 petitioner to r e l i e f . ' L a n c a s t e r v. S t a t e , 638 So. 2d 1370, 1373 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1993) . I t i s the a l l e g a t i o n of f a c t s i n p l e a d i n g which, i f t r u e , e n t i t l e s a petitioner to r e l i e f . A f t e r facts are pleaded, which, i f t r u e , e n t i t l e the p e t i t i o n e r to relief, the p e t i t i o n e r i s then e n t i t l e d t o an opportunity, as provided in Rule 32.9, Ala.R.Crim.P., to present evidence p r o v i n g those alleged facts." 913 So. 2d a t 1125. Further, "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 a n d R u l e 3 2 . 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 b y 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 12 CR-06-2233 for t h e c l a i m must be i n c l u d e d i n t h e p e t i t i o n itself. I f , assuming e v e r y f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n i n a Rule 32 p e t i t i o n t o be t r u e , a court cannot determine whether the p e t i t i o n e r i s e n t i t l e d t o 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 So. 2d 724 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003)." Hyde v. S t a t e , With these 950 So. 2d 344, 356 ( A l a . C r i m . App. p r i n c i p l e s i n m i n d , we now look 2006). to Scott's claims. A. S c o t t a r g u e s t h a t he was i n c o m p e t e n t asserts raised that this c l a i m was adequately pleaded p r i n c i p l e s of substantive procedural to stand t r i a l . due p r o c e s s He and t h a t i t immune t o t h e b a r s i n R u l e 32.2. I n h i s p e t i t i o n , S c o t t a l l e g e d t h a t , b a s e d on h i s c o n d u c t in court i n August 2001, he was e v a l u a t e d he was c o m p e t e n t t o s t a n d following him acts a hearing i n February competent t o s t a n d a n d comments contends trial. trial. t o determine whether He f u r t h e r a s s e r t e d 2002, t h e t r i a l Scott he made a t t r i a l then court s e t out i n August 2002 that he trial. c o u r t e r r e d i n not sua sponte holding a hearing during the t r i a l 13 found assorted e s t a b l i s h t h a t he was n o t c o m p e t e n t t o s t a n d Thus, S c o t t c o n c l u d e d , t h e t r i a l that, t o determine whether Scott CR-06-2233 was competent t o s t a n d c l a i m as trial. The circuit court denied follows: " S c o t t a s s e r t s i n p a r a g r a p h s 59-68 t h a t the C i r c u i t C o u r t e r r e d i n f i n d i n g him c o m p e t e n t t o stand t r i a l , and t h a t t h i s f a i l u r e v i o l a t e d h i s r i g h t s u n d e r P a t e v. R o b i n s o n , 383 U.S. 375, 377 ( 1 9 6 6 ) . Though S c o t t does n o t c h a l l e n g e t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t ' s i n i t i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t he was c o m p e t e n t , he a r g u e s t h a t t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t e r r e d by f a i l i n g t o sua s p o n t e r e c o n s i d e r i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n and h o l d a new competency h e a r i n g given Scott's subsequent b e h a v i o r t h a t [he] p r e s e n t e d d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f the t r i a l . ( P e t . a t p a r a . 59, 61-62, 67-68) T h i s c l a i m i s a d d r e s s e d as f o l l o w s : "(a) T h i s c l a i m i s p r o c e d u r a l l y b a r r e d f r o m t h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w , u n d e r R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) and Rule 32.2(a)(5) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal P r o c e d u r e , b e c a u s e i t c o u l d h a v e b e e n b u t was not r a i s e d at t r i a l o r on d i r e c t a p p e a l . Nicks v. S t a t e , 783 So. 2d 895, 906-07 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ; M e d i n a v. S i n g l e t a r y , 59 F.3d 1095, 1106 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1995) ('A P a t e c l a i m "can and must be raised on d i r e c t appeal"') (quoting James v. S i n g l e t a r y , 957 F.2d 1562, 1572 (11th C i r . 1992)). "(b) I t d o e s n o t a p p e a r t h a t S c o t t r a i s e s a s u b s t a n t i v e due p r o c e s s c l a i m i n h i s p e t i t i o n , as t h e c l a i m f o c u s e s e n t i r e l y on t h e t r i a l court's f a i l u r e t o r e s p o n d t o a l l e g e d i n c i d e n t s and h o l d a new hearing. To t h e e x t e n t S c o t t does r a i s e a substantive due process claim, however, i t is s u m m a r i l y d e n i e d p u r s u a n t t o A l a . R . C r i m . P . 32.7 (d) f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon w h i c h r e l i e f can be granted because the facts alleged do not demonstrate h i s incompetence. '[A] petitioner raising a substantive c l a i m of incompetency i s e n t i t l e d t o no p r e s u m p t i o n o f i n c o m p e t e n c y and must demonstrate his or her incompetency by a preponderance of the e v i d e n c e . ' N i c k s , 783 So. 2d 14 this CR-06-2233 at 908-09 (quoting Medina, 59 F.3d at 1106). S c o t t ' s c l a i m r e l i e s m e r e l y on a few courtroom o u t b u r s t s and d i s a g r e e m e n t s b e t w e e n S c o t t and h i s attorneys. ( P e t . a t p a r a . 61-66) Even i f a l l of t h e f a c t s a l l e g e d i n t h e p e t i t i o n were assumed t o be true, they would not demonstrate Scott's i n c o m p e t e n c y by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e evidence." (C. 7-9.) The and we the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s a r e s u p p o r t e d by t h e a d o p t them f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h i s o p i n i o n . claim challenges claim i s barred. Crim. App. See due in Nicks To process several outbursts and A u g u s t 2002, he v. the State, extent concerns, that plead So. the although b i z a r r e behavior d i d not 783 any he the trial Further, court 2d extent 895 claim Scott raises identified and trial facts to i n d i c a t e that he e x h i b i t e d i n i t appears from S c o t t ' s p l e a d i n g s conducted a f u l l that (Ala. e x h i b i t e d at those a c t s d i f f e r e d from the b i z a r r e b e h a v i o r A u g u s t 2001. To t h e procedural-due-process p r i n c i p l e s , 1999). substantive record, that thorough i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o S c o t t ' s competency f o l l o w i n g h i s b e h a v i o r i n August 2001, had S c o t t e v a l u a t e d , concluding that S c o t t was in competent to s t a n d t r i a l . the p e t i t i o n question and h e l d a h e a r i n g b e f o r e the suggesting earlier any new f i n d i n g of 15 Thus, as t h e r e i s n o t h i n g developments to c a l l competency, S c o t t into failed to CR-06-2233 set out facts in his petition sufficiently 950 So. Ala.R.Crim.P. circuit 2d For court's Rule 32.7(d), at 356; these Amendment r i g h t directed Mr. separate room that and to the to discuss counsel conversation." certain claims Scott trial trial Hyde v. and find no 32.6(b), error in the claim. See Ala.R.Crim.P. Sixth and we 32.3 specificity See 4 d e c i s i o n t o s u m m a r i l y deny t h i s next barred Rules reasons, Scott he with to s a t i s f y h i s heavy burden of p l e a d i n g . State, his and two (C. 208.) counsel witnesses at had counsel of trial from trial court deprived during [Scott's] trial relatives strategy and participating in him of "when i t into a specifically that crucial Scott asserted i n his p e t i t i o n that a disagreement over whether to call trial, notably that trial counsel was A l t h o u g h S c o t t a t t e m p t s t o i n c l u d e more s p e c i f i c facts i n h i s b r i e f on a p p e a l , t h o s e f a c t s a r e n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t f o r r e v i e w b e c a u s e t h e y were n o t i n c l u d e d i n h i s petition. See, e.g., B e a r d e n v. S t a t e , 825 So. 2d 868, 872 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2001) ("Although Bearden attempts t o i n c l u d e more s p e c i f i c facts regarding h i s claims of ineffective a s s i s t a n c e of counsel i n h i s b r i e f to t h i s Court, those allegations are not p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h i s Court f o r review b e c a u s e B e a r d e n d i d n o t i n c l u d e them i n h i s o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n b e f o r e the c i r c u i t court."). 4 16 CR-06-2233 opposed to calling the witnesses. counsel calling brought those the witnesses Scott and Scott further asserted disagreement to the that on defense trial court's on t h e matter; attention and t h e t r i a l the t r i a l c o u r t t h e n i n s t r u c t e d S c o t t a n d h i s two a u n t s t o go i n t o a separate or the court court held a hearing insisted room t o d i s c u s s t h e d e c i s i o n w i t h o u t present. A f t e r f i n d i n g t h e c l a i m t o be b a r r e d by R u l e s and counsel (5), Ala.R.Crim.P., the c i r c u i t 32.2(a)(3) court f u r t h e r found: " T h i s c l a i m i s r e f u t e d b y t h e r e c o r d . The C o u r t a l l o w e d S c o t t t o c o n s u l t w i t h h i s f a m i l y about the d e c i s i o n t o d e f e n d a g a i n s t t h e charges ( e i t h e r by t e s t i f y i n g himself, presenting other witnesses, or b o t h ) . The p e t i t i o n s u g g e s t s t h a t t r i a l c o u n s e l was d e n i e d a c c e s s t o t h i s m e e t i n g and t h a t t h i s t h w a r t e d the representation. (Pet. at para. 74) The p e t i t i o n g r o s s l y misrepresents the circumstances; i t i s a p p a r e n t f r o m t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e f a m i l y members consulted with Scott i n accordance w i t h trial c o u n s e l ' s w i s h e s , i n an a t t e m p t t o c o n v i n c e Scott not t o t e s t i f y . T r i a l counsel f i r s t r a i s e d the idea of S c o t t t a l k i n g t o h i s f a m i l y , i n f o r m i n g the Court t h a t h i s f a m i l y a l s o opposed the i d e a o f c a l l i n g the d e f e n s e w i t n e s s e s , and i n p a r t i c u l a r opposed t h e idea of Scott t a k i n g the stand. (R. 793-94) C o u n s e l even s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u e s t e d that Scott's a u n t be b r o u g h t i n b e c a u s e she h a d w a t c h e d most o f the t r i a l . (R. 799-800) When t h e C o u r t a s k e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t go t o a n o t h e r room t o s p e a k w i t h h i s f a m i l y away f r o m t h e l a w y e r s a n d t h e C o u r t , trial counsel d i d not object. (R. 809-10) A f t e r the c o n f e r e n c e w i t h t h e f a m i l y , t h e c o u r t gave t r i a l c o u n s e l s e v e r a l more h o u r s t o a d v i s e h i s c l i e n t on 17 CR-06-2233 which witnesses to c a l l b e f o r e resuming the h e a r i n g . (R. 817) These f a c t s do n o t e v i n c e any v i o l a t i o n o f t h e S i x t h Amendment. The c l a i m i s s u m m a r i l y d e n i e d p u r s u a n t t o A l a . R . C r i m . P . 32.7(d) f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon w h i c h r e l i e f can be g r a n t e d . " (C. 10-11.) (Emphasis original.) The e v e n t s i n t h i s c a s e h a r d l y r e s e m b l e t h e in the legal authority Scott cites S c o t t c i t e s Payne v. S t a t e , 421 App. on So. circumstances appeal. 2d 1303, For 1305 example, (Ala. Crim. 1982), f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t " [ d ] e p r i v i n g a c r i m i n a l defendant of the recesses -- regardless v i o l a t e s the counsel." trial right to consult with o f how brief counsel the -¬ c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t to e f f e c t i v e assistance of defendant because from the discussing trial may the judgment of the had court anything recesses court be I n Payne , t h i s C o u r t r e v e r s e d court during prevented the with counsel during r e c e s s b e c a u s e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e r e c e s s t h e d e f e n d a n t was the witness stand i n the middle of h i s a on testimony. Here, however, the f a c t s c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e t h a t the trial c o u r t d i d not prevent S c o t t from c o n s u l t i n g w i t h h i s a t t o r n e y ; rather, the were efforts to certain witnesses events convince Scott and the p r e c i p i t a t e d by to forgo brief 18 trial testifying discussion counsel's or calling with Scott's CR-06-2233 relatives trial was i n furtherance of that effort. Further, court also afforded Scott the opportunity the t o meet with counsel, i f he d e s i r e d , a f t e r d i s c u s s i n g t h e m a t t e r w i t h h i s aunts. Finally, this Court e x t e n s i v e l y examined this very c l a i m , c o n c l u d i n g t h a t "no e r r o r o c c u r r e d b e c a u s e t h e r e was no i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h t h e a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p . " S c o t t v. State, this 937 So. 2d a t 1075. case, the c i r c u i t record. B a s e d on t h e s p e c i f i c court's Summary d e n i a l o f t h i s f a c t s of f i n d i n g s a r e s u p p o r t e d by t h e c l a i m was Scott also claims that h i s t r i a l proper. counsel was ineffective f o r a number o f r e a s o n s . "To s u f f i c i e n t l y p l e a d an a l l e g a t i o n o f 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 R u l e 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 t h e [ s p e c i f i c ] a c t s o r o m i s s i o n s o f c o u n s e l t h a t a r e a l l e g e d n o t t o have b e e n t h e r e s u l t o f r e a s o n a b l e p r o f e s s i o n a l 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, 690, 1 0 4 S . C t . 2052, 80 L.Ed. 2d 6 7 4 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , b u t a l s o must p l e a d specific f a c t s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he o r she was p r e j u d i c e d b y the a c t s or omissions, 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 w o u l d have b e e n d i f f e r e n t . ' 466 U.S. a t 694, 104 S. C t . 2052. A bare a l l e g a t i o n that prejudice occurred without s p e c i f i c facts i n d i c a t i n g how the petitioner was prejudiced is not sufficient." Hyde v. S t a t e , 950 So. 2d a t 356. 19 CR-06-2233 1. Scott first incorrect Scott, standard the pleading argues circuit that the for that pleading court is Scott to used an According prejudice. to standard of the "would ( S c o t t ' s b r i e f a t p. i n S t r i c k l a n d , 466 reasonable court probability U.S. that, a t 694, but have 37), been rather "that there for 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 w o u l d have been a held circuit d e f i c i e n t performance l i k e l y t o change t h e r e s u l t " than the standard the different." As S c o t t n o t e s , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d i n Strickland: "[A] defendant need not show that counsel's d e f i c i e n t c o n d u c t more l i k e l y t h a n n o t a l t e r e d t h e outcome i n t h e c a s e . ... "...The r e s u l t o f a p r o c e e d i n g can be rendered u n r e l i a b l e , and h e n c e t h e p r o c e e d i n g i t s e l f u n f a i r , e v e n i f t h e e r r o r s o f c o u n s e l c a n n o t be shown by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e t o have d e t e r m i n e d t h e outcome." 466 U.S. United 693-94. States "In specified a court judgment However, as t h e S t a t e c o r r e c t l y a s s e r t s , Supreme C o u r t c o n t i n u e d , stating: making the determination whether the e r r o r s r e s u l t e d i n the r e q u i r e d p r e j u d i c e , s h o u l d presume, a b s e n t c h a l l e n g e t o the on g r o u n d s o f e v i d e n t i a r y i n s u f f i c i e n c y , 20 the CR-06-2233 t h a t t h e j u d g e o r j u r y a c t e d a c c o r d i n g t o l a w . An assessment o f t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f a r e s u l t more favorable t o the defendant must exclude the possibility of arbitrariness, whimsy, caprice, ' n u l l i f i c a t i o n , ' and t h e l i k e . A d e f e n d a n t h a s no entitlement t o the luck of a lawless decisionmaker, e v e n i f a l a w l e s s d e c i s i o n c a n n o t be r e v i e w e d . The assessment of p r e j u d i c e should proceed on t h e assumption that the decisionmaker i s reasonably, conscientiously, and i m p a r t i a l l y applying the standards t h a t govern t h e d e c i s i o n . I t should not d e p e n d on t h e i d i o s y n c r a c i e s o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r d e c i s i o n m a k e r , s u c h as u n u s u a l p r o p e n s i t i e s t o w a r d h a r s h n e s s o r l e n i e n c y . A l t h o u g h t h e s e f a c t o r s may a c t u a l l y have e n t e r e d i n t o c o u n s e l ' s s e l e c t i o n o f s t r a t e g i e s a n d , t o t h a t l i m i t e d e x t e n t , may t h u s a f f e c t t h e performance i n q u i r y , they are i r r e l e v a n t to the p r e j u d i c e i n q u i r y . Thus, e v i d e n c e a b o u t t h e a c t u a l process of decision, i f not part of the r e c o r d o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g under r e v i e w , and evidence about, f o r example, a p a r t i c u l a r judge's s e n t e n c i n g p r a c t i c e s , s h o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e p r e j u d i c e determination. "The g o v e r n i n g l e g a l s t a n d a r d p l a y s a c r i t i c a l role i n defining t h e q u e s t i o n t o be a s k e d i n a s s e s s i n g t h e p r e j u d i c e f r o m c o u n s e l ' s e r r o r s . When a defendant challenges a c o n v i c t i o n , the q u e s t i o n i s whether t h e r e i s a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y that, a b s e n t t h e e r r o r s , t h e f a c t f i n d e r w o u l d have h a d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t r e s p e c t i n g g u i l t . When a d e f e n d a n t c h a l l e n g e s a d e a t h s e n t e n c e s u c h as t h e one a t i s s u e i n t h i s case, t h e q u e s t i o n i s whether t h e r e i s a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t , absent t h e e r r o r s , t h e s e n t e n c e r -- i n c l u d i n g an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , t o t h e e x t e n t i t i n d e p e n d e n t l y r e w e i g h s t h e e v i d e n c e -¬ w o u l d have c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e b a l a n c e o f a g g r a v a t i n g and m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s d i d n o t w a r r a n t d e a t h . "In making t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , a c o u r t h e a r i n g an i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s c l a i m must c o n s i d e r t h e t o t a l i t y of t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e judge o r j u r y . Some o f 21 CR-06-2233 t h e f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s w i l l have b e e n u n a f f e c t e d by t h e e r r o r s , and f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s t h a t were a f f e c t e d w i l l have b e e n a f f e c t e d i n d i f f e r e n t ways. Some e r r o r s w i l l have had a pervasive e f f e c t on the i n f e r e n c e s t o be drawn f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e , a l t e r i n g t h e e n t i r e e v i d e n t i a r y p i c t u r e , and some w i l l have had an isolated, t r i v i a l effect. Moreover, a v e r d i c t o r c o n c l u s i o n o n l y w e a k l y s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d i s more l i k e l y t o have b e e n a f f e c t e d by e r r o r s t h a n one w i t h o v e r w h e l m i n g r e c o r d s u p p o r t . Taking the u n a f f e c t e d f i n d i n g s as a g i v e n , and t a k i n g due a c c o u n t o f t h e e f f e c t o f t h e e r r o r s on the r e m a i n i n g f i n d i n g s , a c o u r t making the p r e j u d i c e i n q u i r y must a s k i f t h e d e f e n d a n t has met t h e b u r d e n of showing that the decision reached would r e a s o n a b l y l i k e l y have b e e n d i f f e r e n t a b s e n t t h e errors." 466 U.S. a t 694-96 (emphasis added). After c a r e f u l l y reviewing the petition, p e t i t i o n , we does and claims was circuit court's order conclude t h a t a l t h o u g h the c i r c u i t deviate Strickland, the the a p p l i c a b l e l e g a l a u t h o r i t y , somewhat the from circuit proper for the court's the standard ultimate reasons denying court's the order articulated resolution discussed i n more of in the detail below. Scott further considering individually, his argues that the circuit court ineffective-assistance-of-counsel without also considering 22 the erred in claims cumulative e f f e c t CR-06-2233 of the alleged B r o o k s v. State, errors. 929 So. However, 2d 491 as this Court ( A l a . C r i m . App. stated 2005) : " O t h e r s t a t e s and f e d e r a l c o u r t s a r e n o t i n a g r e e m e n t as t o w h e t h e r t h e 'cumulative e f f e c t ' analysis applies to S t r i c k l a n d claims. As the Supreme C o u r t o f N o r t h D a k o t a n o t e d i n G a r c i a v. S t a t e , 678 N.W.2d 568, 578 (N.D. 2004): " ' G a r c i a argues t h a t even i f t r i a l counsel's i n d i v i d u a l a c t s or omissions are insufficient to establish he was prejudiced, the cumulative effect was s u b s t a n t i a l enough t o meet S t r i c k l a n d ' s t e s t . See W i l l i a m s v. W a s h i n g t o n , 59 F.3d 673, 682 ( 7 t h C i r . 1995) ("In m a k i n g t h i s s h o w i n g , a p e t i t i o n e r may d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t the cumulative effect of counsel's individual acts or omissions was s u b s t a n t i a l enough t o meet S t r i c k l a n d ' s t e s t " ) ; b u t see S c o t t v. J o n e s , 915 F.2d 1188, 1191 ( 8 t h C i r . 1990) ("cumulative e r r o r does n o t c a l l f o r h a b e a s r e l i e f , as e a c h h a b e a s c l a i m must s t a n d o r f a l l on i t s own").' "See a l s o H o l l a n d v. S t a t e , 250 Ga. App. 24, 28, 550 S.E.2d 433, 437 (2001) ('Because t h e so-called cumulative error doctrine i s i n a p p l i c a b l e , each c l a i m o f i n a d e q u a c y must be e x a m i n e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y of other c l a i m s , u s i n g the two-prong standard of S t r i c k l a n d v. W a s h i n g t o n . ' ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) ); C a r l v. S t a t e , 234 Ga. App. 61, 65, 506 S.E.2d 207, 212 (1998) ( ' G e o r g i a does n o t r e c o g n i z e t h e c u m u l a t i v e e r r o r r u l e . ' ) ; F i s h e r v. A n g e l o n e , 163 F.3d 835, 852 ( 4 t h C i r . 1998) ('Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , i t has l o n g b e e n the p r a c t i c e of t h i s Court t o i n d i v i d u a l l y a s s e s s c l a i m s u n d e r 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, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . See, e.g., H o o t s v. A l l s b r o o k , 785 F.2d 1214, 1219 (4th C i r . 1986) (considering i n e f f e c t i v e assistance claims 23 in CR-06-2233 individually rather cumulative impact.).'). than considering their "We can f i n d no c a s e where A l a b a m a a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have a p p l i e d t h e c u m u l a t i v e - e f f e c t a n a l y s i s to claims of i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of counsel. However, t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t has h e l d t h a t t h e cumulative effect of prosecutorial misconduct n e c e s s i t a t e d a new t r i a l i n Ex p a r t e T o m l i n , 540 So.2d 668, 672 ( A l a . 1988) ('We need not decide w h e t h e r e i t h e r o f t h e two e r r o r s , s t a n d i n g alone, would require a r e v e r s a l ; we hold that the cumulative e f f e c t of the e r r o r s p r o b a b l y adversely a f f e c t e d t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t and s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t e d t h e f a i r n e s s and i n t e g r i t y o f t h e j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s . ' ) . A l s o , i n Ex p a r t e B r y a n t , [951] So. 2d [724] ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) , t h e Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t the cumulative e f f e c t of e r r o r s may require reversal. " I f we were t o e v a l u a t e t h e c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t o f the i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of counsel c l a i m s , we w o u l d f i n d t h a t B r o o k s ' s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s were n o t injuriously a f f e c t e d . See Bryant and Rule 45, Ala.R.App.P." 929 So. Oct. 9, State, 2d a t 514. 2009] [Ms. See So. 2 0 0 9 ) ; and C r i m . App. 2007). e f f e c t of the would find injuriously 3d CR-03-1902, May C r i m . App. we a l s o Lee v. State, ( A l a . C r i m . App. 29, 2009] McNabb v. State, Here t o o , [Ms. CR-07-0054, 2009); Bush So. 991 3d So. 2d even e v a l u a t i n g the v. (Ala. 313 (Ala. cumulative ineffective-assistance-of-counselallegations, that Scott's s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s had affected. 24 not been CR-06-2233 3. Scott asserts that summary denial of his 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 was individual improper. a. Scott asserts that t r i a l a d e q u a t e l y i n v e s t i g a t i n g and petition, Scott discussed contends an adequate counsel was preparing ineffective for f o r the case. not In h i s a number o f a l l e g e d f a c t s w h i c h i n v e s t i g a t i o n would have he uncovered, i n c l u d i n g e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t S c o t t and a key w i t n e s s for t h e S t a t e had p r e v i o u s l y e n g a g e d i n a s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p o v e r a p e r i o d of frame him s e v e r a l months and for relationship the with rape her; and that that witness murder evidence because from s e t out to ended the he witnesses other than S c o t t as t o what S c o t t c o n t e n d s h a p p e n e d on t h e n i g h t o f the r a p e ; e v i d e n c e e x p l a i n i n g t h e p r e s e n c e o f S c o t t ' s DNA the leg of the including murder that young g i r l s ; Scott had at never the A l t h o u g h he crime exhibited and e v i d e n c e s u g g e s t i n g o r someone e l s e may represented v i c t i m and scene; a on evidence propensity for t h a t the v i c t i m ' s mother have b e e n i n v o l v e d i n t h e v i c t i m ' s m u r d e r . listed s e v e r a l e x a m p l e s o f what he inadequate i n v e s t i g a t i o n , h i s a s s e r t i o n s 25 contends present CR-06-2233 little more allegations. than hypothetical scenarios He does n o t i d e n t i f y and any w i t n e s s e s conclusory who could t e s t i f y t o t h e f a c t s he c l a i m s w o u l d have b e n e f i t t e d h i m , n o r does he assert uncovered that any the witnesses adequately investigated. was proper. See further or i n v e s t i g a t i o n would evidence he contends was Thus, summary d e n i a l o f t h i s Rules 32.3, 32.6(b), and have not claim 32.7(d), Ala.R.Crim.P. Scott next asserts that counsel for n o t r e t a i n i n g any e x p e r t s circuit court addressed t h i s was i n e f f e c t i v e a t t r i a l t o a s s i s t i n h i s defense. The c l a i m as f o l l o w s : "This c l a i m i s i n s u f f i c i e n t l y pleaded. Scott f a u l t s t r i a l counsel f o r not h i r i n g various experts i n c l u d i n g a DNA e x p e r t , a f o r e n s i c p a t h o l o g i s t , a n d a crime scene i n v e s t i g a t o r . But Scott f a i l s t o i d e n t i f y any e x p e r t t h a t was b o t h a v a i l a b l e t o t e s t i f y and t h a t t r i a l c o u n s e l reasonably should have b e e n aware o f , a n d f a i l s t o s t a t e d e f i n i t e l y t h a t any e x p e r t w o u l d have p r o v i d e d a n y s p e c i f i c testimony that t h i s Court could evaluate f o r i t s potential to change the result given the overwhelming evidence of Scott's g u i l t . Though S c o t t c l a i m s an e x p e r t w o u l d have s u p p o r t e d h i s t h e o r y t h a t DNA c o u l d have t r a n s f e r r e d f r o m t h e c o u c h t o t h e v i c t i m ' s t h i g h , he f a i l s t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t s u c h t e s t i m o n y w o u l d have b e e n d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h a t e l i c i t e d f r o m Ms. R o l a n d on t h i s i s s u e . (R. 741-47) Accordingly, S c o t t has f a i l e d t o p l e a d 26 CR-06-2233 s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s to prove d e f i c i e n t performance p r e j u d i c e under S t r i c k l a n d . " (C. 16-17.) record, and The we or c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s a r e s u p p o r t e d by adopt them for purposes of this opinion. B e c a u s e S c o t t f a i l e d t o meet h i s b u r d e n o f p l e a d i n g , d e n i a l of t h i s c l a i m was adequately trial, on f o r not p r e s e n t i n g Scott's In counsel i n v e s t i g a t i n g Scott's S c o t t ' s c o m p e t e n c y , and was ineffective competency f o r nor s e e k i n g denying to for stand adequate argument a t the h e a r i n g the petition, the at trial. circuit found: "This c l a i m i s i n s u f f i c i e n t l y pleaded. Though Scott claims counsel f a i l e d to note d i s c r e p a n c i e s b e t w e e n Dr. N a g i ' s r e p o r t and h i s t e s t i m o n y , there was, i n f a c t , no i n c o n s i s t e n c y . Scott alleges that Dr. Nagi's report found 'Psychosis, NOS (not o t h e r w i s e s p e c i f i e d ) and P o l y s u b s t a n c e Dependence.' ( P e t . a t p a r a . 140) And a t t h e h e a r i n g , Dr. N a g i t e s t i f i e d t h a t S c o t t had ' p e r s o n a l i t y d i s o r d e r ' and 'was u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e ' o f d r u g s , b u t t h a t h i s symptoms were n o t a r e c o g n i z e d m e n t a l i l l n e s s , much l e s s one t h a t w o u l d p r e v e n t a f i n d i n g o f c o m p e t e n c y . (R. 64-69) Much o f t h e c l a i m i s an a t t a c k on t h e correctness o f Dr. Nagi's conclusions based on evidence e l i c i t e d at the h e a r i n g . (Pet. at para. 141-54) S c o t t ' s a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t Dr. N a g i s u f f e r e d 27 on an a d d i t i o n a l h e a r i n g competency i n l i g h t of h i s b e h a v i o r i t s order summary proper. Scott next avers that t r i a l not the court CR-06-2233 a conflict of i n t e r e s t are unsupported by the r e c o r d , and t h e p e t i t i o n n e i t h e r s t a t e s how trial c o u n s e l s h o u l d have l e a r n e d o f t h e a l l e g e d c o n f l i c t n o r how i t s h o u l d have p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e o f t h i s conflict. ( P e t . a t p a r a . 151) Though S c o t t makes a number o f c o n c l u s o r y a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e s u g g e s t s he was i n c o m p e t e n t t o s t a n d t r i a l , he p r o v i d e s no e x p l a n a t i o n o f how t h o s e o p i n i o n s c o u l d have b e e n p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c o u r t . S c o t t f a i l s to i d e n t i f y s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s t h a t t r i a l counsel s h o u l d have a s k e d , o r t o a l l e g e what a n s w e r s t h e s e questions w o u l d have e l i c i t e d t h a t would have a f f e c t e d the Court's d e c i s i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y , S c o t t has failed to plead s u f f i c i e n t facts to prove deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland." (C. 20-21.) Scott's The c i r c u i t court further stated, with regard to contention that counsel s h o u l d have s o u g h t a second competency h e a r i n g : "The f a c t s p l e a d e d f a i l t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t i t was unreasonable not t o ask f o r a second competency hearing. Furthermore, the f a c t s a l l e g e d , even i f t a k e n as t r u e , do n o t d e m o n s t r a t e a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t , had t r i a l c o u n s e l s o u g h t a s e c o n d competency d e t e r m i n a t i o n , the court would have r e a c h e d a d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n . The S t a t e c o n c e d e d t h a t S c o t t made s e v e r a l o u t b u r s t s and s t a t e m e n t s a t t r i a l , and t h a t he a d a m a n t l y d i s a g r e e d w i t h c o u n s e l as t o how h i s d e f e n s e s h o u l d be p r e s e n t e d . This c o n d u c t does n o t d e m o n s t r a t e l a c k o f c o m p e t e n c y , and i n d e e d i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h numerous p r e v i o u s c a p i t a l defendants who were s i m i l a r l y c o m p e t e n t t o s t a n d trial. E.g., M a t t h e w s v. S t a t e , 671 So. 2d 146, 147-48 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1995) (finding that d e f e n d a n t f a i l e d t o r a i s e r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t as t o h i s c o m p e t e n c y t o s t a n d t r i a l n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h a t he r e f u s e d to accept the S t a t e ' s p l e a o f f e r , decided to t e s t i f y a t t r i a l a g a i n s t t h e a d v i c e o f c o u n s e l , and 28 CR-06-2233 made d i s r e s p e c t f u l comments t o t h e t r i a l j u d g e a t h i s s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g ) ; Brown v. S t a t e , [982 So. 2d 565] ( A l a . C r i m . App. A p r . 28, 2006) ( f i n d i n g no prejudice from c a p i t a l defendant's removal from trial f o r two d a y s b e c a u s e h i s o u t b u r s t s were d i s t r a c t i n g t h e j u r y a n d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ) ; Clemons v. S t a t e , 720 So. 2d 961 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1996) ( f i n d i n g no e r r o r i n r e m o v i n g c a p i t a l d e f e n d a n t f r o m a trial who was ' d i s r u p t i v e , d i s o r d e r l y , and uncooperative,' i n c l u d i n g exclaiming i n f r o n t of the j u r y t h a t he h a d a l r e a d y b e e n c o n v i c t e d i n f e d e r a l c o u r t and wanted t o f i r e h i s a t t o r n e y s ) . Indeed, Scott's a c t i v e i n t e r e s t i n the d e t a i l s of the t r i a l d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t he was aware o f what was g o i n g on and was a t t e m p t i n g to a i d h i s attorneys i n the representation." (C. 22-23.) The c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s a r e s u p p o r t e d b y t h e r e c o r d , and we a d o p t them f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h i s o p i n i o n . t o meet h i s b u r d e n c l a i m was of pleading, a n d summary Scott failed d e n i a l of this proper. S c o t t a l s o argues t h a t t r i a l counsel was i n e f f e c t i v e f o r not c h a l l e n g i n g the c o n s o l i d a t i o n of the charges a t t r i a l . On d i r e c t appeal, propriety of t r y i n g this the three Court thoroughly addressed the charges i n a s i n g l e t r i a l , follows: " S c o t t next argues t h a t the t r i a l court e r r e d when i t f a i l e d t o s e v e r t h e c a p i t a l - m u r d e r charges i n v o l v i n g L a t o n y a Sager from rape and a t t e m p t e d 29 as CR-06-2233 murder charges i n v o l v i n g L a n d r i s W r i g h t . t h a t t h e c h a r g e s were i m p r o p e r l y j o i n e d and t h a t he was p r e j u d i c e d as a r e s u l t o f defend a g a i n s t the m u l t i p l e charges i n trial. He c l a i m s for trial having to a single " S c o t t was c h a r g e d i n t h r e e i n d i c t m e n t s . One i n d i c t m e n t c h a r g e d two c o u n t s o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r f o r t h e d e a t h o f L a t o n y a S a g e r -- one c o u n t f o r t h e i n t e n t i o n a l m u r d e r o f a c h i l d u n d e r t h e age o f 14 y e a r s a n d one c o u n t f o r i n t e n t i o n a l m u r d e r d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f , o r d u r i n g an a t t e m p t t o commit, r a p e . I n a s e c o n d i n d i c t m e n t , S c o t t was c h a r g e d w i t h one c o u n t o f r a p e a n d one c o u n t o f a t t e m p t e d m u r d e r f o r h i s a s s a u l t on L a n d r i s W r i g h t . The t h i r d i n d i c t m e n t charged him w i t h b u r g l a r y f o r S c o t t ' s u n a u t h o r i z e d e n t r y i n t o Gladys Smith's r e s i d e n c e . On J u l y 28, 2000, t h e S t a t e f i l e d a m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 13, Ala.R.Crim.P., seeking consolidation of the offenses. The S t a t e a r g u e d t h a t t h e a c t i o n s were p a r t o f a common p l a n o r scheme, t h a t t h e y were c o n n e c t e d , a n d t h a t t h e y were o f t h e same o r s i m i l a r character. (C. 466-67.) The t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n . On t h e m o r n i n g o f t r i a l , S c o t t o b j e c t e d to t h e c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f t h e cases and r e q u e s t e d t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t sever t h e c a p i t a l charges from the n o n c a p i t a l charges. (R. 9 7 . ) The t r i a l court s t a t e d t h a t the cases would remain c o n s o l i d a t e d f o r trial. 3 "Joinder of offenses i s governed by Rule 13.3(a), Ala.R.Crim.P., which provides, i n r e l e v a n t part: "'Two o r more o f f e n s e s may be j o i n e d i n an indictment, information, or complaint, i f they: "'(1) A r e character; or of the 30 same or similar CR-06-2233 "'(2) A r e b a s e d on t h e same c o n d u c t o r are otherwise connected in their commission; o r "'(3) A r e a l l e g e d t o have b e e n p a r t o f a common scheme o r p l a n . ' "Rule 13.3(c), relevant part: Ala.R.Crim.P., provides, in " ' I f offenses or defendants are charged i n separate indictments, informations, or c o m p l a i n t s , t h e c o u r t on i t s own i n i t i a t i v e o r on m o t i o n o f e i t h e r p a r t y may o r d e r t h a t t h e c h a r g e s be t r i e d t o g e t h e r o r t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s be j o i n e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t r i a l i f t h e o f f e n s e s o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s , as t h e c a s e may b e , c o u l d have b e e n j o i n e d i n a single indictment, information, or complaint.' "Rule 13.4(a), Ala.R.Crim.P., p r o v i d e s t h a t i f the defendant i s p r e j u d i c e d by t h e j o i n d e r o f o f f e n s e s t h e c o u r t may g r a n t a s e v e r a n c e . 'It i s o n l y t h e most c o m p e l l i n g p r e j u d i c e t h a t w i l l be s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h e c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n in not g r a n t i n g a severance. U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Perez, 489 F.2d 5 1 , 65 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 3 ) , cert. d e n i e d , 417 U.S. 945, 94 S . C t . 3067, 41 L.Ed.2d 664 (1974). A mere s h o w i n g o f some p r e j u d i c e i s n o t enough.' Ex p a r t e H i n t o n , 548 So. 2d 562, 566 ( A l a . 1989). " S c o t t a r g u e s i n t h i s C o u r t , a s he d i d i n t h e trial court, t h a t t h e charges i n v o l v i n g Latonya S a g e r s h o u l d n o t have been c o n s o l i d a t e d w i t h t h e c h a r g e s i n v o l v i n g L a n d r i s W r i g h t b e c a u s e , he a r g u e s , t h e c a s e s were n o t o f t h e same o r s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r , t h e y were n o t b a s e d on t h e same c o n d u c t o r were o t h e r w i s e c o n n e c t e d , a n d t h e y were n o t p a r t o f a common p l a n o r scheme. The S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l court c o r r e c t l y granted the motion t o j o i n the 31 CR-06-2233 cases because the offenses shared sufficient s i m i l a r i t i e s and because S c o t t f a i l e d t o demonstrate any p r e j u d i c e . We a g r e e w i t h t h e S t a t e . " I n L e w i s v . S t a t e , 889 So. 2d 623 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 3 ) , t h i s C o u r t c o n s i d e r e d w h e t h e r c a p i t a l murder charges had been p r o p e r l y j o i n e d f o r t r i a l w i t h n o n c a p i t a l murder c h a r g e s . After discussing the relevant principles regarding joinder, we determined t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t had not e r r e d i n "'The c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f t h e n o n c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s and t h e c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s i n t h i s c a s e was p r o p e r b e c a u s e t h e c r i m e s were o f a s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r and because evidence o f e a c h c r i m e w o u l d have b e e n a d m i s s i b l e i n a trial f o r t h e o t h e r s as e v i d e n c e o f a common p l a n , scheme, o r d e s i g n , o f L e w i s ' s i n t e n t , and o f Lewis's motive. The c r i m e s were s i m i l a r i n t h a t e a c h o c c u r r e d i n B a l d w i n C o u n t y n e a r where L e w i s l i v e d ; e a c h i n v o l v e d a young f e m a l e v i c t i m w i t h brown h a i r ; each i n v o l v e d a murder, r o b b e r y , r a p e , a n d k i d n a p p i n g o r an a t t e m p t t h e r e o f ; and, i n e a c h c a s e , L e w i s u s e d o r p l a n n e d t o use a k n i f e . E a c h c r i m e w o u l d have b e e n a d m i s s i b l e i n t h e t r i a l o f t h e o t h e r s as e v i d e n c e o f a common p l a n , scheme, o r d e s i g n t o k i d n a p , rape, r o b , and murder young women w i t h brown h a i r who r e s e m b l e d and/or reminded Lewis o f h i s e x - w i f e Lena -- a n d o f L e w i s ' s i n t e n t a n d m o t i v e . ' "889 So. 2d a t 661-62. "The c a s e s a g a i n s t S c o t t were p r o p e r l y j o i n e d f o r many o f t h e r e a s o n s we f o u n d t o a p p l y i n L e w i s . The c r i m e s were s i m i l a r i n t h a t e a c h v i c t i m was acquainted with Scott. E a c h v i c t i m was a young black g i r l . The c r i m e s c e n e s were a p p r o x i m a t e l y 10 m i l e s a p a r t a n d t h e c r i m e s were c o m m i t t e d w i t h i n a 4 32 CR-06-2233 few h o u r s o f e a c h o t h e r . In each i n c i d e n t , S c o t t raped or attempted t o rape the v i c t i m and he p h y s i c a l l y a s s a u l t e d t h e v i c t i m s by c h o k i n g a n d / o r s u f f o c a t i n g them. Evidence from the f i r s t crime s c e n e was f o u n d a t t h e s e c o n d c r i m e s c e n e , and t h e p o l i c e used e v i d e n c e from the second crime scene t o connect S c o t t to the death of Latonya Sager. F i n a l l y , S c o t t t o l d h i s s e c o n d r a p e v i c t i m t h a t he had killed a girl earlier that evening. The requirements of Rule 13.3(a), Ala.R.Crim.P., were f u l l y s a t i s f i e d here. S c o t t has n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d any c o m p e l l i n g p r e j u d i c e as t h e r e s u l t of the joinder. "FN D e f e n s e c o u n s e l s t a t e d t h a t he was 'renewing' t h e o b j e c t i o n t o c o n s o l i d a t i o n , b u t we find no r e c o r d o f an o b j e c t i o n p r i o r t o t h e f i r s t day o f trial. 3 "FN L a t o n y a S a g e r was 10 y e a r s o l d . Latrice W r i g h t ' s d a t e o f b i r t h i s n o t i n t h e r e c o r d b u t she t e s t i f i e d a t t h e t r i a l t h a t she was 20 y e a r s o l d , and t h e t r i a l was h e l d t h r e e y e a r s a f t e r t h e c r i m e s were c o m m i t t e d . T h e r e f o r e , she was a p p r o x i m a t e l y 17 years o l d at the time of the crime." 4 937 So. 2d at 1078-80. In i t s order summarily denying S c o t t ' s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t q u o t e d extensively from then this "Though C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n on d i r e c t - a p p e a l , Scott claims arguments t h a t would counsel failed have r e s u l t e d to and make the in a different found: detailed decision, t h e p e t i t i o n f a i l s t o p r o v i d e any a r g u m e n t s t h a t u n d e r m i n e t h e reliability (C. 27.) of the h o l d i n g of the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals." The circuit court's conclusion i s correct. 33 Scott CR-06-2233 asserted i n h i s p e t i t i o n that counsel cross-admissibility underlying for prejudiced substantially test by factors were joinder the establish and have a r g u e d that joinder; considered C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n on d i r e c t a p p e a l . burden of p l e a d i n g should and he would however, addressed Thus, he the be those in this f a i l e d t o meet h i s s u f f i c i e n t l y and w i t h s p e c i f i c i t y f a c t s t o e i t h e r prong summary d e n i a l o f t h i s of the Strickland test. c l a i m was Therefore, proper. e. Scott trial for further not contends e x p l o i t i n g what State's case. alleged inconsistencies her Scott's r a p i s t f o r c e d her lotion" i n her substance should was counsel he i n the was says assertions are vagina, yet i n e f f e c t i v e at were rape v i c t i m ' s no physical Scott and poured bath rebut i n her testimony vagina that that the a f t e r the vinegar the toward the testimony evidence asserts in poured have b e e n f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n e d a b o u t h e r was holes directed to bath i n vinegar discovered. glitter to that that "glitter of either the victim claim that alleged w o u l d have the vinegar washed away p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e ; t h a t w i t n e s s e s were n o t a s k e d w h e t h e r they smelled e i t h e r substance at the 34 scene or t e s t e d the bed CR-06-2233 sheet or detective items i n the was not bathroom f o r those substances; called to affirm his statements that to a Scott d u r i n g S c o t t ' s i n t e r r o g a t i o n t h a t v i n e g a r w o u l d n o t wash away evidence confronted of rape; with and the impeached the e x p e r t ' s In i t s order court that the detective's State's DNA comment expert which was Scott not said testimony. summarily denying the p e t i t i o n , the circuit found: "Though S c o t t f a u l t s c o u n s e l f o r n o t c h a l l e n g i n g Wright f o r her f a i l u r e to mention the l o t i o n on S e p t e m b e r 11, t h e r e c o r d shows t h a t c o u n s e l d i d a s k h e r a b o u t t h e l o t i o n , and t h a t she specifically t e s t i f i e d t h a t she t o l d t h e d e t e c t i v e s a b o u t t h e lotion that day at the hospital. (R. 432.) D e t e c t i v e C l a r k and DNA e x p e r t R o l a n d were b o t h asked about the f a i l u r e t o f i n d the l o t i o n (R. 7 2 6 - 2 7 ) , b u t S c o t t p e r s i s t s t h a t c o u n s e l s h o u l d have somehow ' p u r s u e [ d ] t h e m a t t e r f u r t h e r ' t o b e l e a g u e r t h e p o i n t t h a t no l o t i o n was found. Similarly, t h o u g h S c o t t makes much o f t h e f a c t t h a t no semen was f o u n d e v e n t h o u g h S c o t t r a p e d W r i g h t a g a i n a f t e r t h e use o f t h e v i n e g a r , t h e S t a t e e x p e r t provided alternative explanations as t o why no semen was found, including that Scott would likely have p r o d u c e d much l e s s g i v e n t h a t he had ejaculated s e v e r a l t i m e s i n t h e p r e c e d i n g h o u r s , and t h a t semen i s s o m e t i m e s s i m p l y n o t f o u n d . (R. 748-51.) Though the p e t i t i o n f a u l t s c o u n s e l f o r not a s k i n g Wright how S c o t t 'might know where t o f i n d a b o t t l e o f vinegar, l e t a l o n e be aware o f i t s cleansing p o t e n t i a l ' (Pet. a t p a r a . 125), i t i s o b v i o u s t h a t s u c h q u e s t i o n s w o u l d have b e e n i m p r o p e r , as t h e y w o u l d have c a l l e d f o r s p e c u l a t i o n f r o m t h e w i t n e s s . The f a c t s a l l e g e d do n o t d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t trial 35 CR-06-2233 counsel was constitutionally deficient for not asking the precise formulations of lotion and v i n e g a r q u e s t i o n s t h a t S c o t t p r o f f e r s , nor t h a t such q u e s t i o n s w o u l d have c h a n g e d t h e r e s u l t . Quite simply, counsel repeatedly questioned witnesses a b o u t t h e l o t i o n and v i n e g a r , b u t t h o s e questions d i d not s u f f i c i e n t l y undermine W r i g h t ' s testimony and the other evidence t h a t a rape occurred." (Footnote omitted) (C. 18-19.) There done by 971, i s always counsel 980 something at t r i a l . (Ala. Crim. App. See more t h a t "could" Lawhorn v. State, 1999) ("'Even the have 756 best been So. 2d criminal defense a t t o r n e y s would not defend a p a r t i c u l a r c l i e n t i n the same way.'" we ( q u o t i n g S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S. a t 689). However, S c o t t now contends cannot say t h a t the a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s s h o u l d have b e e n a s k e d , as p l e a d e d i n t h e p e t i t i o n , meet burden of of Therefore, Scott not pleading both prongs summary d e n i a l o f t h i s claims that c h a l l e n g i n g two t o S c o t t , one counsel prospective was the c l a i m was Strickland test. proper. ineffective at t r i a l j u r o r s f o r cause. for According p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r knew t h e f a t h e r o f one of v i c t i m s and t h e o t h e r p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r d i s c l o s e d d u r i n g 36 the the voir CR-06-2233 dire that she h a d b e e n raped by her uncle when she was 10 years o l d . Scott served avers that the f i r s t on t h e j u r y b u t s h o u l d because she r e c o g n i z e d prospective juror actually have b e e n c h a l l e n g e d the father f o r cause o f one o f t h e v i c t i m s as someone who l i v e d i n h e r c o m m u n i t y a n d e x p r e s s e d s u r p r i s e when she learned circuit he was the v i c t i m ' s father. found i n i t s order denying court However, as t h e the p e t i t i o n , and S c o t t even conceded i n h i s p e t i t i o n , t h e j u r o r i n d i c a t e d t h a t she d i d n o t p e r s o n a l l y know t h e v i c t i m ' s f a t h e r a n d h a d o n l y met h i m i n t h e community. Scott does not a l l e g e that the j u r o r was i m p a r t i a l , a n d , f u r t h e r , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o u n d i n its to order this denied. juror, petition denying the p e t i t i o n that a challenge prospective juror With regard t o the second complained-of the c i r c u i t court on t h i s noted ground f o r c a u s e as would i n i t s order that the juror i n d i c a t e d during voir have been prospective denying the d i r e t h a t she c o u l d be i m p a r t i a l , a n d t h e r e c o r d on d i r e c t a p p e a l supports this finding. S c o t t d i d n o t p l e a d a n y f a c t s i n h i s p e t i t i o n t o meet h i s burden of p l e a d i n g e i t h e r p r o n g o f t h e S t r i c k l a n d t e s t as t o 37 CR-06-2233 counsel's failure j u r o r s f o r cause. as true, there to challenge e i t h e r of these prospective Even t a k i n g t h e a s s e r t i o n s i n t h e p e t i t i o n i s nothing to indicate that a challenge f o r c a u s e s h o u l d have b e e n g r a n t e d as t o e i t h e r p r o s p e c t i v e "[C]ounsel baseless (Ala. could n o t be i n e f f e c t i v e objection." Crim. App. for failing B e a r d e n v. S t a t e , 2001). Further, juror. to raise a 825 So. 2d 868, 872 one o f t h e p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s was removed w i t h a p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e , a n d S c o t t d i d n o t plead any f a c t s i n d i c a t i n g either that the j u r y seated was p a r t i a l o r i d e n t i f y a n y j u r o r who w o u l d have b e e n removed v i a a p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e h a d he n o t u s e d t h a t c h a l l e n g e the complained-of petition supporting Therefore, that juror. Scott the removing I t i s c l e a r from t h e face failed prejudice to prong summary d e n i a l o f t h i s plead of of the sufficient facts Strickland test. the c l a i m was proper. g. Scott also contends that t r i a l counsel was ineffective w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e i n c i d e n t d u r i n g t r i a l when t h e t r i a l had his court S c o t t d i s c u s s w i t h f a m i l y members o u t s i d e t h e p r e s e n c e o f attorney Specifically, whether Scott to c a l l avers that 38 c e r t a i n witnesses i f he w a i v e d at trial. his right to CR-06-2233 communicate claim, with then t r i a l counsel counsel as to was the underlying ineffective substantive for allowing waiver. The circuit court denied this c l a i m as follows: "This c l a i m i s m e r i t l e s s . The C o u r t a l l o w e d S c o t t t o c o n s u l t w i t h h i s f a m i l y about h i s d e c i s i o n t o d e f e n d a g a i n s t t h e c h a r g e s ( e i t h e r by t e s t i f y i n g h i m s e l f , p r e s e n t i n g other w i t n e s s e s , or b o t h ) . It i s a p p a r e n t f r o m t h e r e c o r d t h a t f a m i l y members consulted i n accordance w i t h t r i a l counsel's wishes, i n an a t t e m p t t o c o n v i n c e S c o t t n o t t o t e s t i f y . T r i a l counsel f i r s t r a i s e d the i d e a of S c o t t t a l k i n g to h i s f a m i l y , i n f o r m i n g the Court t h a t h i s f a m i l y also opposed the idea of calling the defense witnesses, and i n p a r t i c u l a r o p p o s e d t h e i d e a o f S c o t t t a k i n g the stand. (R. 793-94.) C o u n s e l e v e n s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u e s t e d t h a t S c o t t ' s a u n t be b r o u g h t i n b e c a u s e she had w a t c h e d most o f t h e t r i a l . (R. 799-800.) When t h e C o u r t a s k e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t go t o a n o t h e r room t o s p e a k w i t h h i s f a m i l y away f r o m t h e l a w y e r s and t h e C o u r t , t r i a l c o u n s e l d i d not o b j e c t . (R. 809-10.) These f a c t s do not i m p l i c a t e t h e S i x t h Amendment b e c a u s e S c o t t had f u l l b e n e f i t of c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h h i s counsel before making h i s defense d e c i s i o n s . In a d d i t i o n t o the consultations that occurred before the family conference, t h e c o u r t gave t r i a l c o u n s e l several more h o u r s t o a d v i s e h i s c l i e n t on w h i c h w i t n e s s e s to c a l l a f t e r the f a m i l y conference but before r e s u m i n g t h e h e a r i n g . (R. 817.) "Scott also fails to establish prejudice. Indeed, the record suggests that Scott's c o n s u l t a t i o n with h i s f a m i l y brought h i s d e s i r e s more i n l i n e w i t h d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ' s a d v i c e ; when Scott returned, he a n n o u n c e d t h a t he no longer wanted to call several witnesses to testify, including himself. (R. 8 1 2 - 8 1 3 . ) " 39 that CR-06-2233 (C. 31-33.) court's It The r e c o r d on d i r e c t a p p e a l s u p p o r t s findings, the c i r c u i t a n d we a d o p t them a s p a r t o f t h i s opinion. i s c l e a r from t h e d i r e c t - a p p e a l r e c o r d t h a t S c o t t ' s trial counsel a n d S c o t t were i n d i s a g r e e m e n t a s t o w h e t h e r t o c a l l certain witnesses direct appeal and whether record also Scott indicates should that testify. the t r i a l The court i n s t r u c t e d S c o t t t o d i s c u s s t h e m a t t e r w i t h two o f h i s f a m i l y members outside ascertaining counsel's of the presence that the family of defense members agreed counsel with after defense a d v i c e t h a t S c o t t n o t t e s t i f y and t h a t t h e w i t n e s s e s n o t be c a l l e d a t t r i a l . of t h i s counsel was n o t i m p l i c a t e d b y t h e u n d e r l y i n g e v e n t s a t t r i a l . trial counsel Scott's i s not e n t i t l e d was i n e f f e c t i v e Sixth a s we h e l d i n P a r t III.B. Thus, S c o t t opinion, Additionally, Amendment t o any r e l i e f i n this right on h i s c l a i m to that regard. D. S c o t t f u r t h e r argues t h a t counsel was i n e f f e c t i v e a t t h e p e n a l t y phase o f h i s t r i a l . "When r e v i e w i n g c l a i m s o f 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 d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y phase o f a c a p i t a l t r i a l we a p p l y t h e f o l l o w i n g l e g a l s t a n d a r d s . "'When t h e i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e claim relates to the sentencing phase o f t h e 40 CR-06-2233 t r i a l , t h e s t a n d a r d i s w h e t h e r t h e r e i s "a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t , absent the errors, the sentencer -including an appellate court, to the extent i t independently reweighs the evidence -¬ w o u l d have c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e b a l a n c e o f a g g r a v a t i n g and m i t i g a t i n g circumstances did not warrant death." 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,] a t 695, 104 S.Ct. [2052,] a t 2069 [ ( 1 9 8 4 ) ] . ' " S t a f f o r d v. 1994). Saffle, 34 F.3d 1557, 1564 (10th C i r . "In W i g g i n s v. S m i t h , 539 U.S. 510 ( 2 0 0 3 ) , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n r e v i e w i n g a c l a i m of 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 a t the p e n a l t y phase of a c a p i t a l t r i a l , s t a t e d : "'In 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 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ] , we made c l e a r that, to e s t a b l i s h p r e j u d i c e , a " d e f e n d a n t must show that there i s a reasonable probability that, but f o r counsel's unprofessional e r r o r s , the r e s u l t of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y i s a p r o b a b i l i t y s u f f i c i e n t to u n d e r m i n e c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e outcome." I d . , a t 694. I n a s s e s s i n g p r e j u d i c e , we r e w e i g h the evidence i n a g g r a v a t i o n a g a i n s t the t o t a l i t y of a v a i l a b l e m i t i g a t i n g evidence.' "539 U.S. at 534. "'"The reasonableness of counsel's investigation and preparation for the penalty p h a s e , o f c o u r s e , o f t e n depends c r i t i c a l l y upon t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p l i e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t . E.g. Commonwealth v. U d e r r a , 550 Pa. 389, 706 A.2d 334, 340-41 (1998) 41 CR-06-2233 (collecting cases). Counsel c a n n o t be f o u n d i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g to introduce information u n i q u e l y w i t h i n t h e knowledge o f the defendant and h i s f a m i l y which is not provided to counsel."' " W a l d r o p v. S t a t e , 987 So. 2d 1186, 1195 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 7 ) , q u o t i n g Commonwealth v. Bond, 572 Pa. 588, 609-10, 819 A.2d 33, 45-46 (2002). "'"A d e f e n s e a t t o r n e y i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e a l l l e a d s , h o w e v e r , and ' t h e r e i s no p e r se r u l e t h a t e v i d e n c e o f a c r i m i n a l defendant's t r o u b l e d childhood must a l w a y s be p r e s e n t e d as m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e i n the p e n a l t y phase of a c a p i t a l c a s e . ' " B o l e n d e r [ v . S i n g l e t a r y ] , 16 F.3d [1547,] at 1557 [(11th C i r . 1994)] ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) ( q u o t i n g D e v i e r v. Z a n t , 3 F.3d 1445, 1453 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 3 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , [513] U.S. [ 1 1 6 1 ] , 115 S.Ct. 1125, 130 L.Ed.2d 1087 (1995)). "Indeed, ' [ c ] o u n s e l has no a b s o l u t e d u t y t o p r e s e n t m i t i g a t i n g c h a r a c t e r e v i d e n c e a t a l l , and trial counsel's failure to present mitigating evidence is not per se ineffective assistance of counsel.'" Bolender, 16 F.3d a t 1557 (citations omitted).' "Marek v. S i n g l e t a r y , 62 F.3d 1295, 1300 1995)." D a v i s v. S t a t e , [Ms. CR-05-2050, Aug. 7, 2009] ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2009). 42 (11th C i r . So. 3d , CR-06-2233 Scott asserts d i s c o v e r or present of his trial. childhood, The that trial counsel not adequately m i t i g a t i n g evidence at the p e n a l t y Scott's contentions p s y c h o l o g i c a l i s s u e s , and circuit did court include drug summarily denied evidence phase of use. this claim, finding: "The p e t i t i o n a l l e g e s t h a t c o u n s e l d i d n o t s p e n d enough t i m e on t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , r e s u l t i n g i n t h e f a i l u r e t o u n c o v e r numerous d o c u m e n t s and i n t e r v i e w 'numerous i n d i v i d u a l s . ' (Pet. at para. 198-200) However, the petition does not allege facts demonstrating that a reasonable i n v e s t i g a t i o n should have l e d t o t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f t h e s e r e c o r d s and interviews with these i n d i v i d u a l s , f a i l s to i d e n t i f y w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l s s h o u l d have b e e n c o n t a c t e d and what t h e y s h o u l d have b e e n a s k e d , and fails to s p e c i f i c a l l y d e s c r i b e what m i t i g a t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n w o u l d have b e e n a t t a i n e d t h a t c o u l d have overcome the s e r i o u s a g g r a v a t i o n i n t h i s case. Accordingly, S c o t t has f a i l e d t o p l e a d s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s t o p r o v e deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland." (C. 35.) The circuit court f u r t h e r found: "The p e t i t i o n a l l e g e s a number o f t r a u m a t i c e v e n t s i n S c o t t ' s p a s t and f a m i l y h i s t o r y , b u t repeatedly f a i l s t o e x p l a i n what r e a s o n a b l e i n v e s t i g a t i o n w o u l d h a v e l e d t o t h e d i s c o v e r y o f t h e s e f a c t s and f a i l s t o e x p l a i n what w i t n e s s o r documents w o u l d have p r o v e d these events to the jury. Though the p e t i t i o n s t a t e s t h e r e was ' r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e ' S c o t t was molested (Pet. at para. 202), i t fails to p r o v i d e any t i m e p e r i o d f o r o r d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e a b u s e , f a i l s t o e x p l a i n how t r i a l counsel should have d i s c o v e r e d this information, and does not s u g g e s t how i t w o u l d have b e e n p r e s e n t e d to the jury. Similarly, the petition suggests a 43 his CR-06-2233 p s y c h o l o g i s t s h o u l d have t e s t i f i e d a b o u t sexual abuse by S c o t t ' s g r a n d f a t h e r (R. 2 0 5 ) , b u t does n o t identify a psychologist t h a t was a v a i l a b l e to t e s t i f y and does n o t a l l e g e what t h e e x p e r t w o u l d have t o l d the j u r y . The claim also fails to d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t , had t h e e v i d e n c e b e e n p r e s e n t e d , i t w o u l d have b e e n l i k e l y t o change t h e r e s u l t o f the s e n t e n c i n g d e t e r m i n a t i o n . Accordingly, Scott has failed to plead sufficient f a c t s to prove deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland." (C. 36-37.) A d d i t i o n a l l y , the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s order i n d i c a t e s the f o l l o w i n g : "Though t h e p e t i t i o n i m p l i e s a p s y c h o l o g i s t s h o u l d have t e s t i f i e d a b o u t S c o t t ' s m e n t a l o r emotional d i s t u r b a n c e , i t does n o t i d e n t i f y a p s y c h o l o g i s t t h a t was a v a i l a b l e t o t e s t i f y and does n o t a l l e g e what t h e e x p e r t w o u l d have o p i n e d r e g a r d i n g S c o t t ' s p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s and h i s t o r y . T h i s p l e a d i n g failure leaves this Court unable to determine whether p s y c h o l o g i c a l testimony w o u l d have b e e n likely t o change t h e result of the sentencing determination. A c c o r d i n g l y , S c o t t has f a i l e d t o plead sufficient facts to prove deficient performance or p r e j u d i c e under S t r i c k l a n d . " (C. 39-40.) petition Finally, did indicating not that assert a have b e e n p r e s e n t e d findings specific supported jury." excerpts by the 44 court or found (C. that sufficient investigation o r t o s t a t e how to the above-quoted are circuit "reasonable u n c o v e r e d t h e d r u g use The the the facts would have this information could 40.) from the circuit record and are court's adopted for CR-06-2233 purposes of t h i s sufficient pleading or as Therefore, opinion. specific to either The facts petition to prong meet of summary d e n i a l o f t h e s e d i d not s e t out Scott's the burden Strickland c l a i m s was of test. proper. 2. Scott also asserts that counsel was i n e f f e c t i v e at the p e n a l t y phase f o r n o t o b j e c t i n g t o a l l e g e d l y improper f i n d i n g s o f f a c t made d u r i n g t h e s e n t e n c i n g p h a s e . argues t h a t counsel the trial Arizona, The 536 U.S. 584 trial aggravating the p r i n c i p l e s (2002), circumstance court Scott s h o u l d have o b j e c t e d b e c a u s e , he c l a i m s , court v i o l a t e d aggravating Specifically, v. b y f i n d i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f an t h a t was n o t p r e s e n t e d i n s t r u c t e d the j u r y circumstances: espoused i n Ring to the j u r y . at sentencing on two (1) t h a t S c o t t h a d p r e v i o u s l y b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f a f e l o n y i n v o l v i n g t h e use o r t h r e a t o f v i o l e n c e to another person, a n d (2) t h a t t h e p r e s e n t was c o m m i t t e d d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e trial capital of a f i r s t - d e g r e e rape. c o u r t d i d n o t i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y on a t h i r d circumstance: that the offense offense was aggravating especially heinous, a t r o c i o u s , o r c r u e l as compared t o o t h e r c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s . its sentencing o r d e r , however, t h e t r i a l 45 The In c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d and CR-06-2233 found even the existence though contends court's In third aggravating i t had n o t been p r e s e n t e d that counsel inclusion sentencing of that should of this have to the jury. objected aggravating circumstance Scott to the circumstance trial in i t s order. Ex p a r t e Waldrop, 859 So. 2d 1181 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d : "Waldrop claims that the trial court's determination t h a t t h e m u r d e r s were especially h e i n o u s , a t r o c i o u s , o r c r u e l as compared t o o t h e r c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s -- an a g g r a v a t i n g circumstance u n d e r A l a . Code 1975, § 13A-5-49(8) -- i s a f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t u n d e r R i n g must be made b y t h e j u r y . However, R i n g a n d A p p r e n d i f v . New J e r s e y , 530 U.S. 466 (2000),] do n o t r e q u i r e t h a t t h e j u r y make every f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n ; i n s t e a d , those cases r e q u i r e t h e j u r y t o f i n d beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt o n l y t h o s e f a c t s t h a t r e s u l t i n 'an i n c r e a s e i n a defendant's a u t h o r i z e d punishment o r '"expose[] [a d e f e n d a n t ] t o a g r e a t e r p u n i s h m e n t . . . . " ' Ring, 536 U.S. a t 602, 122 S . C t . a t 2439, 2440 ( q u o t i n g A p p r e n d i , 530 U.S. a t 494, 120 S . C t . 2 3 4 8 ) . A l a b a m a l a w r e q u i r e s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f o n l y one a g g r a v a t i n g circumstance i n order f o r a defendant t o be sentenced t o death. A l a . Code 1975, § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 5 ( f ) . The j u r y i n t h i s c a s e f o u n d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h a t one a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e : t h a t t h e m u r d e r s were committed while Waldrop was engaged i n the commission of a robbery. A t t h a t p o i n t , Waldrop became ' e x p o s e d ' t o , o r e l i g i b l e f o r , t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y . The t r i a l c o u r t ' s s u b s e q u e n t d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e m u r d e r s were e s p e c i a l l y h e i n o u s , a t r o c i o u s , or c r u e l i s a f a c t o r t h a t has a p p l i c a t i o n o n l y i n weighing the mitigating circumstances and t h e 46 CR-06-2233 aggravating circumstances, a p r o c e s s t h a t we e a r l i e r i s n o t an ' e l e m e n t ' o f t h e o f f e n s e . " 859 a So. 2d a t 1190. A l a b a m a c o u r t s have r e p e a t e d l y jury conviction committed during requirement a Crim. counsel made of a capital rape determine App. found satisfies Here, the the existence the that requirements, Ring of an 929 So. 2d 491 jury of necessity the jury v e r d i c t there was no alone basis f o r t o o b j e c t on t h e g r o u n d s S c o t t now c o m p l a i n s o f . See Ex p a r t e W a l d r o p , s u p r a ; C l a r k v. S t a t e , 896 So. 2d 584, 657 (Ala. C r i m . App. 2000) could r e c e i v e b a s e d on t h e j u r y ' s g u i l t - p h a s e was i t was t h e m u r d e r was c o m m i t t e d d u r i n g t h e Thus, g i v e n the Ring that necessary f o rthe imposition of the 2005). that held because See , e . g . , B r o o k s v. S t a t e , course of a rape. satisfied jury circumstance death penalty. unanimously the course that aggravating (Ala. f o r murder held death, aggravating ("Because t h e maximum s e n t e n c e the t r i a l court's circumstance that finding of t h e murder verdict Clark alone the a d d i t i o n a l was especially h e i n o u s , a t r o c i o u s , o r c r u e l was a f a c t o r t h a t h a d a p p l i c a t i o n only i n the process mitigating finding of weighing circumstances, within the purview the aggravating a process of Ring 47 that and t h e i s not a f a c t u a l and A p p r e n d i . " ) . It is CR-06-2233 well settled that "counsel f a i l i n g to raise a baseless So. n o t be objection." ineffective for B e a r d e n v. S t a t e , 825 2d a t 872. The the could circuit court found i n i t s order summarily denying petition: "The p r o p r i e t y o f S c o t t ' s s e n t e n c e was and a d d r e s s e d on d i r e c t a p p e a l . The c o u r t that raised stated "'Alabama c o u r t s have r e j e c t e d t h e c l a i m t h a t o n l y t h e j u r y c a n d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r an aggravating circumstance e x i s t s . E.g., Ex p a r t e Hodges, 856 So. 2d 936, 944-45 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ; Ex p a r t e W a l d r o p , 859 So. 2d 1 1 8 1 , 1188 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ; Yeomans v. S t a t e , 898 So. 2d 878, 897 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 4 ) ; L e w i s v. S t a t e , 889 So. 2d 623, 703 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003). No e r r o r o c c u r r e d when t h e trial court found the e x i s t e n c e o f an a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e t h a t was n o t f i r s t submitted to the jury.' "Scott, 937 So. 2d a t 1083. The C o u r t also reaffirmed that t h e Alabama c a p i t a l sentencing s t a t u t e i s c o n s i s t e n t with Ring. S c o t t , 937 So. 2d a t 1086-87 ( c i t i n g W a l d r o p , 859 So. 2d 1 1 8 1 ) . Trial c o u n s e l c a n n o t be i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g t o r a i s e a meritless claim. Magwood v . S t a t e , 689 So. 2d 959, 979 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1996) ('None o f t h e i s s u e s i n Magwood's p e t i t i o n have m e r i t a n d c o u n s e l c a n n o t be i n e f f e c t i v e f o r n o t r a i s i n g m e r i t l e s s i s s u e s . ' ) . T h i s c l a i m i s s u m m a r i l y d e n i e d under R u l e 32.7(d) o f the Alabama R u l e s o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e . " 48 CR-06-2233 (C. 42-43.) We purposes of t h i s adopt the opinion. circuit also contends a s s i s t a n c e of counsel counsel interference substantive and that on a p p e a l . should with was claim was denied the effective S p e c i f i c a l l y , he a r g u e s t h a t what he his c o n t e n d s was right issue addressed i n Part have r a i s e d the for Ala.R.Crim.P. he s h o u l d have c h a l l e n g e d court's findings Summary d e n i a l o f t h i s 5 c l e a r l y p r o p e r under Rule 32.7(d), Scott court's to trial counsel I I I . B . of t h i s d e n i a l of the (the opinion), funds f o r a m i t i g a t i o n expert. With regard to the former, Scott failed to meet the r e q u i r e m e n t s of Rule 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , Ala.R.App.P., which requires that "the of an argument contain contentions a p p e l l a n t / p e t i t i o n e r w i t h r e s p e c t to the i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d , the and S c o t t c i t e s Ex p a r t e T a y l o r , 10 So. 3d 1075 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a f i n d i n g o f no p l a i n e r r o r as t o an i s s u e on d i r e c t a p p e a l does n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y f o r e c l o s e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of p r e j u d i c e under S t r i c k l a n d . This p r o p o s i t i o n is correct. H e r e , h o w e v e r , t h e r e was no e r r o r - - p l a i n , preserved, or o t h e r w i s e - - a s t o the u n d e r l y i n g i s s u e , i . e . , w h e t h e r a t r i a l c o u r t may f i n d an a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e n o t s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y . Thus, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s r e l i a n c e on t h e o p i n i o n on d i r e c t a p p e a l does n o t c o n f l i c t w i t h the p r i n c i p l e s e s p o u s e d i n Ex p a r t e T a y l o r . 5 49 CR-06-2233 the reasons t h e r e f o r , w i t h other authorities, "Recitation of and c i t a t i o n s to the cases, parts allegations of the without record statutes, relied citation to on." any legal 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 relied upon has been deemed a w a i v e r o f t h e a r g u m e n t s l i s t e d . " v. State, 913 So. 2d 460, 486 appellate court delineated as s u c h and w i l l not been will been p r o p e r l y applied propositions devoid (citations authority may only those not search issues This briefs containing R i l e y , 464 So. 2d 92, 94 "When an a p p e l l a n t a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t as t o t h a t has general ( A l a . 1985) fails issue, to cite this any Court for i t i s neither t h i s C o u r t ' s d u t y n o r i t s f u n c t i o n t o p e r f o r m an appellant's 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 . Co. , 722 So. 2d 747, 752 ( A l a . 1998) . Scott any l e g a l a u t h o r i t y t o s u p p o r t h i s c o n t e n t i o n counsel properly standard f o r an argument on a p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e , legal research." "An o f d e l i n e a t i o n and s u p p o r t f r o m a u t h o r i t y Ex p a r t e omitted). to 2002) . o u t e r r o r s w h i c h have preserved or assigned. specifically or argument." consider ( A l a . C r i m . App. Hamm failed to cite that appellate was i n e f f e c t i v e f o r n o t r a i s i n g t h i s c l a i m . Further, the u n d e r l y i n g substantive c l a i m was 50 considered and r e j e c t e d CR-06-2233 on the merits appeal, in this Court's p l a i n - e r r o r review and by t h i s C o u r t i n P a r t I I I . B . , a b o v e . underlying claim ineffective is clearly for not generally Bearden could be not v. without raising the State, ineffective 825 for merit, claim So. 2d failing direct Because counsel on at to on the was not appeal. 872 raise See ("[C]ounsel a baseless obj e c t i o n . " ) . With regard ineffective to Scott's f o r not claim that appellate counsel challenging funds f o r a m i t i g a t i o n e x p e r t , c l a i m as the the trial circuit court's denial court denied follows: "This c l a i m i s i n s u f f i c i e n t l y pleaded. Though t h e p e t i t i o n s t a t e s t h a t A l a b a m a l a w r e q u i r e s 'the d i s b u r s e m e n t o f m i t i g a t i o n - e x p e r t f u n d s where t h e d e f e n d a n t makes t h e r e q u i r e d s h o w i n g ' ( P e t . a t p a r a . 234, 2 3 0 ) , i t f a i l s t o l a y o u t t h e l e g a l standard for e v a l u a t i n g funds r e q u e s t s ; f a i l s to argue, w i t h c i t a t i o n s , t h a t the r e c o r d demonstrates t h a t S c o t t can meet t h a t standard; and fails to provide argument demonstrating that the circuit court reversibly erred. F o r t h a t m a t t e r , t h e c l a i m does n o t e v e n a l l e g e , much l e s s d e m o n s t r a t e v i a r e c o r d c i t a t i o n , t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e v e n r u l e d upon t h e motion, suggesting t h a t t h e r e may n o t e v e n be a r e v i e w a b l e o r d e r t h a t a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l c o u l d have challenged. ( P e t . a t p a r a . 229) Accordingly, Scott has failed to plead sufficient f a c t s to prove d e f i c i e n t performance or p r e j u d i c e under S t r i c k l a n d . See A l a . R. C r i m . P. 32.3, 3 2 . 6 ( d ) ; W i l l i a m s [ v. S t a t e ] , 783 So. 2d 108,] 129-30 [ ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000)]. This c l a i m i s summarily denied. 51 was of this CR-06-2233 "The c l a i m i s a l s o w i t h o u t m e r i t b e c a u s e t h e r e c o r d does n o t s u p p o r t a f a v o r a b l e d e c i s i o n b y t h e court of Criminal Appeals. As S c o t t a d m i t s , t h e r e c o r d does n o t c o n t a i n a r u l i n g on t h e m o t i o n f o r f u n d s f o r an i n v e s t i g a t o r . ( P e t . a t p a r a . 229) The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s c o n f r o n t e d an i d e n t i c a l s i t u a t i o n on d i r e c t a p p e a l i n Q u i c k v. S t a t e , 825 So. 2d 246 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 1 ) . The c o u r t h e l d : "'As t o t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s c l a i m t h a t he was e n t i t l e d t o f u n d s t o h i r e an i n v e s t i g a t o r , the a p p e l l a n t i n h i s b r i e f t o t h i s Court a d m i t s t h a t t h e r e c o r d i s u n c l e a r as t o whether the t r i a l court denied this request, because there i s no ruling c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e c o r d on t h e m o t i o n . No o b j e c t i o n was made t o t h e f a i l u r e t o r u l e , i f t h e r e was s u c h a f a i l u r e , a t t r i a l ; therefore, any e r r o r must be reviewed p u r s u a n t t o t h e p l a i n - e r r o r r u l e , R u l e 45A, Ala.R.App.P. I t i s c l e a r t h a t e r r o r cannot be p r e d i c a t e d on a s i l e n t r e c o r d , n o r w i l l t h i s C o u r t p r e d i c a t e e r r o r on m a t t e r s t h a t a r e n o t shown b y t h e r e c o r d . Smelcher v. S t a t e , 520 So. 2d 229, 233 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1987). "'Where t h e r e c o r d i s s i l e n t on a p p e a l , i t w i l l be p r e s u m e d t h a t what o u g h t t o have b e e n done was n o t o n l y done b u t r i g h t l y done.' J o l l y v. S t a t e , 405 So. 2d 76 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 1 ) ; Watson v . S t a t e , 398 So. 2d 320 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 0 ) , w r i t denied, 398 So. 2d 332 (Ala.), cert. d e n i e d , 452 U.S. 9 4 1 [ ] ( 1 9 8 1 ) . " Owens v. S t a t e , 597 So. 2d 734, 736 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1992). Because t h i s argument r a i s e d by t h e a p p e l l a n t i s b a s e d on s p e c u l a t i o n a n d i s u n s u p p o r t e d b y t h e r e c o r d , t h i s c l a i m does not r i s e t o the l e v e l o f p l a i n e r r o r . ' " I d . a t 259 (emphasis a d d e d ) . r e c o r d i n t h e p r e s e n t case 52 S i m i l a r l y , the s i l e n t w o u l d have p r e v e n t e d CR-06-2233 a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l f r o m r e c e i v i n g any r e l i e f had he a r g u e d t h e m i t i g a t i o n e x p e r t f u n d s c l a i m on d i r e c t appeal. A p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l ' i s not o b l i g e d t o r a i s e i s s u e s r e a s o n a b l y c o n s i d e r e d t o be w i t h o u t m e r i t . ' B e l l [ v. S t a t e ] , 518 So. 2d [840,] 847 [ ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1987)]. This claim i s therefore summarily d e n i e d under R u l e 32.7(d) of the Alabama R u l e s of C r i m i n a l Procedure." (C. 54-56.) A l t h o u g h t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t r e l i e d upon W i l l i a m s v. 783 So. 2d 108 (Ala. o v e r r u l e d by Ex p a r t e Taylor, do n o t f i n d t h a t f a t a l . order App. 10 2000), So. t h a t was f i n d i n g of precludes no the error possibility Strickland. r e l i e d upon t h e Taylor, court's language i . e . , that automatically f i n d i n g of p r e j u d i c e relied on Williams. 29, 2009] cases cited therein. 3d [Ms. ( A l a . C r i m . App. Here, sufficiently pleading State, or as with facts to in Bush, indicate that 53 the CR-03-1902, May 2009), the specificity affirmed under R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n s when t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r o n e o u s l y B u s h v. C o u r t has we of See this ( A l a . 2005), d i r e c t appeal any been denial So. Second, of on has i n the c i r c u i t r e j e c t e d i n Ex p a r t e plain which 3d 1075 F i r s t , nothing here i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t s order in Williams a Crim. State, and petition to the was not meet S c o t t ' s counsel was pleaded burden ineffective of for CR-06-2233 n o t r a i s i n g t h i s c l a i m on a p p e a l . Ala.R.Crim.P. 6 Finally, that death See R u l e s 32.3 a n d 3 2 . 6 ( b ) , Scott by claims lethal that summary d e n i a l o f h i s c l a i m injection, as applied c o n s t i t u t e s c r u e l and u n u s u a l punishment. c i r c u i t court improperly procedural i n Alabama, He a r g u e s t h a t t h e f o u n d t h e c l a i m t o be s u b j e c t to the b a r s i n R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) and (5), and i n s u f f i c i e n t l y pleaded. The barred circuit court found by R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) , same c l a i m appeal; the c i r c u i t barred by R u l e 32.2(a)(5), claim to the extent a d d r e s s e d by t h i s direct this Court's court t o be that procedurally i t r a i s e d the p l a i n - e r r o r review further to the extent found that the on claim the p e t i t i o n S c o t t h a s a t t a c h e d t o h i s b r i e f an a p p e n d i x p u r p o r t i n g t o be a p e t i t i o n 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 b y M i c h a e l J e f f r e y L a n d . A c c o r d i n g t o S c o t t , t h e p e t i t i o n i s t h e R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n d i s c u s s e d i n Ex p a r t e L a n d , 775 So. 2d 847 ( A l a . 2000) ( g r a n t i n g p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus o r d e r i n g d i s c o v e r y i n r e g a r d t o Land's p e t i t i o n f o r p o s t c o n v i c t i o n relief). However, i t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t " a t t a c h m e n t s t o b r i e f s a r e n o t c o n s i d e r e d p a r t o f t h e r e c o r d and t h e r e f o r e c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d on a p p e a l . " H u f f v. S t a t e , 596 So. 2d 16, 19 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) . Because t h e appendix i n Scott's p e t i t i o n i s not contained i n the record before t h i s C o u r t , we do n o t c o n s i d e r t h a t p e t i t i o n on a p p e a l . 6 54 CR-06-2233 expanded applied the by a l l e g a t i o n to Alabama. With challenge regard to a p p l i c a t i o n o f R u l e s 3 2 . 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) and t h a t he d i d not p r e s e n t why present the Rule any 32 lethal Scott's (5) was application of the additional f a c t s he facts in his petition petition was the proper before t h i s Court. ( A l a . C r i m . App. more specific assistance 2001) not provides on appeal are in his properly his claims brief before to Thus, not So. of this this the Scott's petition s t a t e m e n t s o f t h e l a w and c o n c l u s o r y injection punishment. the the properly 2d 868, 872 include ineffective Court, Court for those review petition circuit court."). Further, lethal in argument i n b e c a u s e B e a r d e n d i d n o t i n c l u d e them i n h i s o r i g i n a l before note vehicle improper. B e a r d e n v. S t a t e , 825 regarding counsel are b a r s was the explaining ("Although Bearden attempts t o facts of allegations See any as that the d e n i a l of h i s p e t i t i o n t h a t procedural now claim i m p r o p e r , we w h i c h t o r a i s e t h i s c l a i m , n o r d i d he p r e s e n t h i s motion to reconsider injection as Scott contains only a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t d e a t h by a p p l i e d i n A l a b a m a i s c r u e l and d i d not general allege in his petition unusual that the l e t h a l - i n j e c t i o n p r o c e d u r e i n Alabama, i f p r o p e r l y performed, 55 CR-06-2233 subjects a death-row inmate unconscionable l e v e l of p a i n . 313 ( A l a . Crim. individualized App. an unacceptable Nor that did lethal Scott present injection c r u e l and u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t i f p e r f o r m e d on him. v. State, f i n d no 993 error So. 2d 907 or See McNabb v. S t a t e , 991 So. 2007). allegations to ( A l a . C r i m . App. i n the c i r c u i t 2008). c o u r t ' s summarily any would See be Sharifi Thus, denying and Ala.R.Crim.P. Finally, as the circuit claim i s without merit. legal we this c l a i m p u r s u a n t t o t h e p l e a d i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s i n R u l e s 32.3 32.6(b), 2d authority for court noted i n i t s order, Although the c i r c u i t this conclusion, we the court cited note simply no that s i m i l a r c l a i m s have b e e n r e p e a t e d l y r e j e c t e d by t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s of Alabama. As t h i s C o u r t r e c e n t l y stated: " ' [ C ] o u r t s have r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y i s n o t p e r se c r u e l and u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t and t h a t e l e c t r o c u t i o n i s n o t a c r u e l and u n u s u a l method o f c a p i t a l punishment. See Z a n t v. S t e p h e n s , 462 U.S. 862, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 77 L.Ed.2d 235 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ; P r o f f i t t v. F l o r i d a , 428 U.S. 242, 96 S.Ct. 2960, 49 L.Ed.2d 913 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ; Furman v. G e o r g i a , 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ; W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 627 So.2d 985 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) , a f f ' d , 627 So.2d 999 ( A l a . 1993), cert. d e n i e d , 511 U.S. 1012, 114 S.Ct. 1387, 128 L . E d . 2 d 61 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ; B o y k i n v. S t a t e , 281 56 CR-06-2233 A l a . 659, 207 So. 2d 412 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 395 U.S. 238, 89 S . C t . 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 ( 1 9 6 9 ) . ' "Wynn v . S t a t e , 804 So. 2d 1122, 1148 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . A l s o , i n Ex p a r t e B e l i s l e , 11 So. 3d So. 323, 339 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t a d d r e s s e d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n Baze v. Rees, U.S. , 128 S . C t . 1520, 170 L.Ed. 2d 420 ( 2 0 0 8 ) , a n d ' c o n c l u d e [ d ] t h a t A l a b a m a ' s u s e o f l e t h a l i n j e c t i o n as a method o f e x e c u t i o n does n o t v i o l a t e t h e E i g h t h Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d States Constitution.'" Newton v . S t a t e , , [Ms. CR-05-1517, O c t . 2, 2009] So. 3d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s , S c o t t i s e n t i t l e d t o no r e l i e f on t h i s claim. B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , t h e judgment o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t is affirmed. AFFIRMED. W i s e , P . J . , a n d W e l c h , Windom, a n d K e l l u m , J J . , c o n c u r . 57
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.
