Barbara Ann Roberts v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/28/2010 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-08-1229 Barbara Ann Roberts v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Cherokee C i r c u i t (CC-06-461) Court MAIN, J u d g e . Barbara counts Ann R o b e r t s o f m u r d e r made during a kidnapping, intentional appeals capital her convictions because t h e murder for two occurred s e e § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975; f o r m u r d e r , s e e § 13A-6-2, A l a . Code 1975; a n d f o r CR-08-1229 f i r s t - d e g r e e r o b b e r y , s e e § 13A-8-41, A l a . Code 1975. sentenced, as to the capital-murder imprisonment without to run to life the p o s s i b i l i t y of p a r o l e , the sentences concurrently; intentional-murder convictions, She was to life imprisonment conviction, the as sentence to to the run c o n c u r r e n t l y t o t h e s e n t e n c e s f o r c a p i t a l murder; and t o l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t as t o t h e f i r s t - d e g r e e - r o b b e r y sentence a l s o t o run c o n c u r r e n t l y c o n v i c t i o n , the t o the other sentences. I. Roberts argues t h a t the t r i a l continue the j u r y trial, because, competent t o a s s i s t h e r c o u n s e l court erred i n refusing to she c l a i m s , she was n o t i n preparing her defense or t o u n d e r s t a n d a n d t o c o n s i d e r any p l e a o f f e r s made by t h e S t a t e . The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t a p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g was h e l d on Roberts's motion f o r a continuance, i n which defense counsel a r g u e d t h a t he was n o t d i s p u t i n g R o b e r t s ' s competence t o s t a n d trial b u t was d i s p u t i n g h e r competence t o c o n s i d e r accept or r e j e c t the State's settlement. 1 Defense offer counsel of a plea argued that and e i t h e r arrangement o r physicians had The S t a t e o f f e r e d Roberts the o p p o r t u n i t y t o p l e a d g u i l t y t o m u r d e r a n d k i d n a p p i n g a n d t o be s e n t e n c e d t o c o n c u r r e n t sentences o f l i f e imprisonment i n exchange f o r t e s t i m o n y 1 2 CR-08-1229 c h a n g e d t h e m e d i c a t i o n R o b e r t s was t a k i n g f o r m e n t a l and that he understand plea. d i d not b e l i e v e that the r a m i f i c a t i o n s she c o u l d problems appreciate or of the p l e a o f f e r or a The p r o s e c u t o r r e s p o n d e d t h a t b e c a u s e d e f e n s e guilty counsel was " n o t s u r e [ R o b e r t s ] a p p r e c i a t e [ d ] t h e s i t u a t i o n she [ w a s ] in thoroughly, ... t h e S t a t e w o u l d be p r e p a r e d to leave the o f f e r on t h e t a b l e , a n d i f [ d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] w i s h e [ d ] t o have c o n t i n u e d d i a l o g w i t h [ t h e S t a t e ] over t h e next c o u p l e o f days or w h a t e v e r , [ t h e S t a t e ] w o u l d be more t h a n happy t o do t h a t . " (R. 89.) The t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d for a t h a t the case would remain s e t t r i a l u n l e s s defense counsel presented f u r t h e r reasons f o r continuance. Defense counsel s t a t e d t h a t i f the doctors were o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t " b e c a u s e o f t h e b o t t l e n e c k i n g o f t h e f a c t s o r t h e change i n t h e m e d i c i n e s we're u n a b l e then or whatever reason, t o g e t v i a b l e communication a t the c r u c i a l I f e e l that a continuance w o u l d be i n o r d e r . " The t r i a l c o u r t t h e n s t a t e d t o d e f e n s e that time, (R. 91.) counsel that decisions c o n c e r n i n g competency t o s t a n d t r i a l a r e g o v e r n e d by R u l e 11, Ala.R.Crim.P., and t h a t t h e c o u r t had r e v i e w e d against her accomplice. 3 the f o r e n s i c CR-08-1229 psychiatrist's report finding Roberts competent to stand trial. Defense counsel being nonresponsive treating t h e n s t a t e d t h a t R o b e r t s was t o Dr. h e r , so t h e f a m i l y Defense counsel Jason called Junkins, who apparently had i n Dr. Richard things t o be t a k e n o u t o f c o n t e x t . u s i n g t h a t as o u r g u i d e p o s t , of our n e g o t i a t i o n s that's ... [ H ] e ' s g o t t o g e t t h a t r e g u l a t e d , n o t t h a t she c a n ' t s t a n d t r i a l , The t r i a l Grant. s t a t e d t h a t Roberts t o l d him t h a t "Dr. Grant s a y s t h e r e a r e some i s s u e s [ w i t h ] h e r b i p o l a r d i s o r d e r causing been we're n o t we're t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e l a s t p a r t stage." (R. 94-95.) c o u r t p o s t p o n e d any f u r t h e r r u l i n g , stating: "THE COURT: W e l l , i f I u n d e r s t a n d i t , t h e n , t h e r e i s n o t an i s s u e o f h e r competence t o s t a n d trial. A n d w h i l e I have n o t s e e n a r e p o r t f r o m e i t h e r Dr. Junkins or Dr. Grant, given the c u r r e n t s t a t e o f t h e f i l e , t h e argument y o u ' v e made, t h e m o t i o n t h a t ' s on t h e t a b l e , I t h i n k t h e c a s e n e e d s to remain scheduled f o r t r i a l . Now, i f you g e t a r e p o r t f r o m G r a n t o r J u n k i n s o r t h e two o f them a n d t h e D.A. w a n t s t o c r o s s - e x a m i n e e i t h e r o r b o t h o f t h o s e d o c t o r s , t h e n I ' l l t r y t o s c h e d u l e some t i m e t o do t h a t . " (R. 95.) prosecutor F i n a l l y , j u s t before the close of the hearing, the stated: " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : J u s t b a s e d on what we r e a d i n t h e f i l e a n d what we know o f t h e d e f e n d a n t , we do n o t 4 CR-08-1229 a n t i c i p a t e t h e r e w i l l be any i s s u e s o f c o m p e t e n c y t h a t w i l l n e e d t o be a d d r e s s e d by t h e C o u r t , I t h i n k i f I hear [defense c o u n s e l ] r i g h t , c o r r e c t l y , there are i s s u e s about whether or not she's r e a l l y a b l e to s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o m p r e h e n d what t h e o f f e r i s and what t h e r a m i f i c a t i o n s o f t h a t o f f e r a r e , and i t m i g h t be t h a t i t ' s more a l o n g t h o s e l i n e s and as I've told t h e C o u r t and t h e d e f e n s e , we w i l l s e e k t o c o n t i n u e t o w o r k t h r o u g h t h o s e i s s u e s w i t h them i f t h e y w i s h and t r y t o g e t t h a t i s s u e o f f t h e t a b l e q u i c k l y , either resolve i t by a c l e a r r e j e c t i o n or an u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t w e ' l l have a p l e a , and w e ' l l l e t t h e C o u r t know e i t h e r way." (R. 97-98.) Three days l a t e r , another hearing d o c t o r n o r any w i t n e s s was Roberts's competency appreciate the letter was Junkins. 2 The or her that prosecutor held, ability to she c a s e , and prosecutor could appreciate neither understand unsigned "purport[ed]" to r e s p o n d e d t h a t Dr. and be the consequences t h a t she c o u l d a s s i s t h e r c o u n s e l and undated from Dr. Doug McKeown, a c e r t i f i e d f o r e n s i c e x a m i n e r , f o u n d t h a t R o b e r t s was that and p r e s e n t e d by t h e d e f e n s e c o n c e r n i n g g u i l t y - p l e a o f f e r . An produced was competent, involved in i n the t r i a l . a l s o a r g u e d t h a t w h i l e Dr. McKeown was the The a certified Subsequently, during the g u i l t phase of the trial, R o b e r t s p r e s e n t e d t h e t e s t i m o n y o f Dr. J u n k i n s and, d u r i n g an i n c a m e r a d i s c u s s i o n , a u t h e n t i c a t e d t h e l e t t e r as h a v i n g b e e n w r i t t e n by Dr. J u n k i n s . (R. 1092-96.) 2 5 CR-08-1229 forensic medicine examiner, Dr. Junkins was a doctor of a n d was n o t q u a l i f i e d t o g i v e an o p i n i o n competency. Finally, qualifications present and had concerning t h e p r o s e c u t o r argued t h a t Dr. J u n k i n s was n o t p r e s e n t a n d a v a i l a b l e t o be c r o s s - e x a m i n e d his internal or opinions. presented no concerning Moreover, Dr. G r a n t evidence. was n o t Finally, the p r o s e c u t o r s t a t e d t h a t t h e o f f e n s e h a d o c c u r r e d o v e r two y e a r s before t h e h e a r i n g a n d t h a t t h e a l l e g e d change i n m e d i c a t i o n apparently occurred approximately 10 t o 14 d a y s b e f o r e t h e h e a r i n g ; t h u s , t h e p r o s e c u t o r a r g u e d , t h e t r i a l , w h i c h was s e t for 11 d a y s a f t e r t h e h e a r i n g , s h o u l d n o t be c o n t i n u e d . trial c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t i t saw n o t h i n g i n t h e l e t t e r f r o m D r . Junkins trial The t h a t "addresses t h e q u e s t i o n o f competency t o s t a n d w i t h i n t h e meaning o f Rule C r i m i n a l Procedure." 11 o f t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f (R. 106.) D e f e n s e c o u n s e l r e s p o n d e d t h a t as a r e s u l t o f t h e change in Robert's medication, conversation with her." he was u n a b l e t o have "meaningful (R. 106.) He s t a t e d t h a t h i s concern was t h a t " a t some p o i n t l a t e r [ R o b e r t s ] may come b a c k a n d s a y , well, did t h a t ' s n o t e x a c t l y what I u n d e r s t o o d . " not believe that she c o u l d 6 knowingly (R. 107.) participate He in a CR-08-1229 guilty plea. Defense counsel argued: "I'm p r o f e s s i o n a l p s y c h o l o g i s t o r a n y t h i n g , I'm what t h e y have t o l d me So not I'm my any of ability weeks, to in the have a doctor past, i n my meaningful trial court with opinion, the conversation. past That's (R. determined: "The q u e s t i o n , t h e n , f o r me t o d e c i d e i s w h e t h e r t o g r a n t a c o n t i n u a n c e t o g i v e you an o p p o r t u n i t y t o t r y t o work o u t a s e t t l e m e n t o f t h i s c a s e . The c a s e has b e e n p e n d i n g a l o n g t i m e . I t h i n k i n many c a s e s , l a w y e r s f o r g e t how c r u e l i t i s f o r t h e f a m i l i e s o f a v i c t i m when c a s e s a r e p o s t p o n e d and p o s t p o n e d a g a i n and p o s t p o n e d y e t a n o t h e r t i m e . I d o n ' t t h i n k t h a t t h e mere t h a t merely because a defendant l a c k s the competency t o e n t e r a p l e a of g u i l t y r i s e s to the l e v e l of incompetency to s t a n d t r i a l , and b e c a u s e I d o n ' t have a n y t h i n g b e f o r e t h e C o u r t w h i c h s a t i s f i e s me t h a t she i s i n c o m p e t e n t t o s t a n d t r i a l , I d o n ' t f e e l l i k e I have any r e a s o n a b l e b a s i s t o postpone the case." 7 her. j u s t s a y i n g we've s t r i c t l y what t h i s i s a b o u t . N o t a b o u t c o m p e t e n c y . " The or j u s t b a s i n g i t on personal experience n o t c h a l l e n g i n g t h e c o m p e t e n c y , I'm had couple and not 107.) CR-08-1229 (R. 108-09.) counsel The 3 trial that defense counsel t o a n y a g r e e m e n t as t o a The t r i a l trial, raised court commenced a t the hearing as error further informed defense c o u l d speak t o t h e p r o s e c u t o r continuance. 11 d a y s l a t e r . Following the j u r y on t h e m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l , the t r i a l court's c o n t i n u a n c e b a s e d on h e r i n c o m p e t e n c y . failure Roberts to grant The p r o s e c u t o r d u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g t h a t " [ t ] h e r e was no l a s t m i n u t e p l e a her noted offer from t h e S t a t e , " b u t r a t h e r t h e S t a t e had been a t t e m p t i n g discuss a settlement 1491-92.) with The p r o s e c u t o r as her f o r a year and a h a l f . to (R. stated: "One o f t h e t h i n g s I t h i n k t h e C o u r t commented on when t h i s i s s u e was a c t u a l l y b e f o r e t h e C o u r t r i g h t b e f o r e t r i a l was t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s t h e C o u r t made o f the d e f e n d a n t d u r i n g t h e p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g s . And i t was c l e a r , I b e l i e v e t o t h e C o u r t i n t h o s e comments, f r o m what I r e c a l l and I r e c a l l f r o m my own p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n them, t h a t Ms. R o b e r t s was a f u l l participant in those proceedings, providing a s s i s t a n c e t o h e r c o u n s e l , t u g g i n g on h i s s l e e v e , t e l l i n g h i m what t o s a y , f e e d i n g h i m a r g u m e n t s . I t h i n k t h a t i s c o n t r a r y t o t h e v i e w t h a t she was i n c o m p e t e n t d u r i n g t h a t time and, o f course, t h e The l e t t e r f r o m D r . J u n k i n s s t a t e s t h a t R o b e r t s " i s most l i k e l y u n a b l e t o make a n y m e a n i n g f u l d e c i s i o n s , u n d e r s t a n d o r a p p r e c i a t e t h e s e v e r i t y o f t h e d e c i s i o n a n d a p p e a r s t o be completely unable t o appreciate the complexities of that decision." (C. 2817.) 3 8 CR-08-1229 C o u r t w i l l remember on i t s own t h e C o u r t b u t t h o s e a r e my recollections." (R. observed, 1502-03.) The record continuance understand participate was or to indicates prefaced that on a p p r e c i a t e the i n any g u i l t y her Roberts's motion alleged inability to offer to State's plea for and plea. "Due p r o c e s s r e q u i r e s t h a t an a c c u s e d be l e g a l l y c o m p e t e n t t o p l e a d g u i l t y . Chavez v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 641 F.2d 1253, 1255-56 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 8 1 ) . The p l e a must be v o l u n t a r y and i n t e l l i g e n t . Boykin v. A l a b a m a , 395 U.S. 238, 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1711, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 ( 1 9 6 9 ) . ' C o u r t s g e n e r a l l y have h e l d t h a t t h e s t a n d a r d o f competence t o s t a n d t r i a l p a r a l l e l s the s t a n d a r d of competence t o p l e a d g u i l t y . ' T w e l f t h A n n u a l R e v i e w o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e , 71 Geo. L . J . 339, 540, n. 1348 ( 1 9 8 2 ) . See a l s o A n n o t . 31 A.L.R. Fed. 375 ( 1 9 7 7 ) . T h a t t e s t i s w h e t h e r t h e a c c u s e d has ' s u f f i c i e n t p r e s e n t a b i l i t y t o c o n s u l t w i t h h i s lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational u n d e r s t a n d i n g - - a n d w h e t h e r he has a r a t i o n a l as w e l l as f a c t u a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s a g a i n s t h i m . ' Dusky v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 ( 1 9 6 0 ) . " E a t h o r n e v. S t a t e , 448 So. 2d 445, 448 ( A l a . C r i m . App. Thus, t h e same g u i d e l i n e s o r s t a n d a r d a p p l i e s t o 1984). determining c o m p e t e n c y t o s t a n d t r i a l as does t o d e t e r m i n i n g competence t o plead guilty. "'A d e f e n d a n t i s m e n t a l l y i n c o m p e t e n t t o s t a n d t r i a l o r t o be s e n t e n c e d f o r an o f f e n s e i f t h a t defendant lacks s u f f i c i e n t present a b i l i t y to a s s i s t 9 CR-08-1229 i n h i s o r h e r d e f e n s e by c o n s u l t i n g w i t h c o u n s e l w i t h a reasonable degree of r a t i o n a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e f a c t s and t h e l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g s a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t . ' R u l e 11.1, A l a . R . C r i m . P . 'The d e f e n d a n t bears the burden of p e r s u a d i n g the c o u r t t h a t a r e a s o n a b l e and b o n a f i d e d o u b t e x i s t s as t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m e n t a l c o m p e t e n c y , and t h i s i s a m a t t e r w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . ' C l i f f v. S t a t e , 518 So. 2d 786, 790 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1987). 'In o r d e r t o o v e r t u r n t h e t r i a l j u d g e ' s c o m p e t e n c y d e t e r m i n a t i o n , we must f i n d t h a t t h e j u d g e a b u s e d h i s o r h e r d i s c r e t i o n . ' T a n k e r s l e y v. S t a t e , 724 So. 2d 557, 565 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) . ' " I n t h e a b s e n c e of any e v i d e n c e , t h e mere a l l e g a t i o n s by c o u n s e l t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t i s i n c o m p e t e n t t o s t a n d t r i a l do not e s t a b l i s h r e a s o n a b l e grounds t o doubt the d e f e n d a n t ' s s a n i t y and w a r r a n t an i n q u i r y i n t o h i s competency."' I d . , q u o t i n g C l i f f , 518 So. 2d a t 7 91." Hodges v. 2005). State, 926 Roberts's So. claim 2d 1060, concerned 1068-69 her ( A l a . Crim. understanding c o n s e q u e n c e s o f a c c e p t i n g t h e S t a t e ' s p l e a o f f e r and pleading guilty should, therefore, be g u i d e l i n e s as h e r c o m p e t e n c y t o s t a n d As argued by the prosecutor App. of the thereby e v a l u a t e d by t h e same trial. and stated by the trial c o u r t , the o n l y e v i d e n c e g o i n g t o R o b e r t ' s compentency, o t h e r than defense incompetent from a and doctor counsel's difficult of professions that t o communicate w i t h , internal medicine 10 that Roberts was made a no was letter direct CR-08-1229 a s s e r t i o n of her a b i l i t y to a s s i s t counsel i n her defense to understand b a s i c l e g a l or proceedings. " G e n e r a l l y , defense c o u n s e l ' s remarks c o n c e r n i n g h i s i n a b i l i t y t o communicate w i t h h i s c l i e n t a r e not e n t i t l e d t o any c o n c l u s i v e e f f e c t w i t h r e s p e c t t o the i s s u e of whether the defendant i s competent t o s t a n d t r i a l , a l t h o u g h t h e y s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d by the court along with any other evidence of i n c o m p e t e n c y . T h i b o d e a u x v. S t a t e , T e x . C r . A p p . , 505 S.W. 2d 260 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ; Drope v. M i s s o u r i , 420 U.S. 162, 175, 95 S.Ct. 896, 906, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975); P e o p l e v. L a u d e r m i l k , 67 C a l . 2d 272, 61 C a l . R p t r . 644, 431 P.2d 228 ( 1 9 6 7 ) ; Brown v. S t a t e , 346 N.E. 2d 559 ( I n d . 1 9 7 6 ) . See a l s o G o u l d e n v. S t a t e , 53 Ala. App. 276, 299 So. 2d 321 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ; Moore v. S t a t e , 52 A l a . App. 179, 290 So. 2d 246 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . " Atwell v State, 354 So. 2d 30, 36 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1977) (holding that despite counsel's continuing opinion that defendant was i n s a n e , t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e t o i n d i c a t e t h a t the defendant's mental c o n d i t i o n at the time of the t r i a l different i t was from inquisition, Cir. The at the time of c i t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v. I v e s , 504 1974)). C r i m . App. what the the sanity F. 2d 935 See N i c k s v. S t a t e , 783 So. 2d 895, was (9th 912-14 ( A l a . 1999). letter confirmed that Roberts's medications f o r her m e n t a l i l l n e s s h a d b e e n c h a n g e d and n e e d e d t o be r e g u l a t e d and t h a t she may have d i f f i c u l t y u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e c o m p l e x i t i e s o f her decision. "'[T]he law i s clear 11 that " [ p ] r o o f of the CR-08-1229 incompetency simply o f an a c c u s e d t o s t a n d t r i a l showing psychological 860, 881 that the accused difficulties."' ( A l a . C r i m . App. has i n v o l v e s more t h a n mental Thomas v. 1998), a f f ' d , problems State, 766 or So. 2d 766 So. 2d 975 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s by Ex p a r t e T a y l o r , 10 So.3d 1075 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g B a i l e y v. S t a t e , 1366 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982)." April 27, 2007] So. C o n n a l l y v. S t a t e , 3d , 421 So. 2d 1364, [Ms. CR-05-1229, ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2007). "Even a c l a i m o f p r e s e n t d r u g u s e does n o t , p e r s e , r e n d e r a defendant incompetent to stand t r i a l . Robinson, [530 F.2d 677 W i l l i a m s , 468 F.2d 819 So. 2d 445 So. 2d United States v. (5th C i r . 1976)]; U n i t e d States v. ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 2 ) ; E a t h o r n e [v. S t a t e , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 782, 785 See 1984)]." (Ala.Crim.App. g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e S t e p h e n s , 512 448 S t e p h e n s v. S t a t e , 1986), r e v e r s e d on So. 2d 786 a l s o E a t h o r n e v. S t a t e , 448 So. 2d a t 449 512 other ( A l a . 1987). ("The mere f a c t See that E a t h o r n e was s u f f e r i n g f r o m f e e l i n g s o f g u i l t o r w o r t h l e s s n e s s a t t h e t i m e he p l e d g u i l t y i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t i n and o f to render mental the illness plea involuntary. or other mental '(T)he disability mere itself presence at the time of (the d e f e n d a n t ) e n t e r e d h i s p l e a does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y mean t h a t 12 he CR-08-1229 was incompetent 362 U.S. F.2d 402 986, Bolius, test.'[ ] [v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , Bolius 4 (5th C i r . 1979). v. W a i n w r i g h t , 'The mental 597 illness or must h a v e b e e n so d e b i l i t a t i n g t h a t ( t h e d e f e n d a n t ) unable rational (1960),] 990 disability was t o p l e a d u n d e r t h e Dusky to consult and factual with h i s lawyer understanding and of d i d n o t have the a proceedings.' 597 F.2d a t 9 9 0 . " ) . Here, R o b e r t s had f i l e d a "Motion t o Continue A r r a i g n m e n t and Motion for Psychological Testing" months b e f o r e t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n the jury t r i a l , assist approximately five f o r a continuance of a l l e g i n g t h a t she l a c k e d s u f f i c i e n t a b i l i t y t o i n her defense. In response that motion, the trial c o u r t c o n t i n u e d t h e c a s e t o p r o v i d e an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r R o b e r t s t o be p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y e v a l u a t e d . trial court also stand t r i a l (C. 2329.) (C. 179.) o r d e r e d an e v a l u a t i o n Subsequently, the o f h e r competency t o and h e r m e n t a l s t a t e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e o f f e n s e . The report filed i n d i c a t e d t h a t R o b e r t s was pursuant to this competent t o s t a n d evaluation trial: The Dusky t e s t r e q u i r e s t h a t an a c c u s e d has s u f f i c i e n t a b i l i t y to consult w i t h h i s or her counsel with r a t i o n a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g and t h a t t h e a c c u s e d has a r a t i o n a l and f a c t u a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s a g a i n s t him or h e r . 4 13 CR-08-1229 "Ms. R o b e r t s has a r e a s o n a b l e ability to appraise a v a i l a b l e l e g a l defenses understanding the consequences f o r a g u i l t y and n o t g u i l t y p l e a and she a l s o u n d e r s t o o d a m e n t a l s t a t e d e f e n s e when t h a t was explained to h e r . She demonstrated an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f l e g a l s t r a t e g i e s s u c h as a p l e a b a r g a i n when t h o s e were e x p l a i n e d t o h e r as w e l l . The D e f e n d a n t a p p e a r s f u l l y c a p a b l e o f r e l a t i n g t o defense c o u n s e l and a l s o p r o v i d i n g a s s i s t a n c e i n c h a l l e n g i n g p r o s e c u t i o n w i t n e s s e s . B a s e d on c u r r e n t a s s e s s m e n t t h e r e does n o t a p p e a r t o be a l i k e l i h o o d of u n m a n a g e a b l e b e h a v i o r i n t h e c o u r t r o o m b u t t h a t would n o t p r e c l u d e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f becoming somewhat e m o t i o n a l a t t i m e s . The D e f e n d a n t does appear capable o f t e s t i f y i n g i n a r e l e v a n t f a s h i o n i f t h e need a r i s e s . A l l i n a l l , t h e Defendant appears c a p a b l e o f a s s i s t i n g defense c o u n s e l and a l s o assuming t h e r o l e of a Defendant i n a j u d i c i a l proceeding." (C. 2368-69.) This r e p o r t was d a t e d approximately n i n e months before t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n t o c o n t i n u e a n d was a v a i l a b l e t o t h e trial court. hearing, she significantly B a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e did not changed s t a t e d i n Eathorne prove since Roberts that that her earlier presented at the condition had evaluation. As v. S t a t e , s u p r a : "Here, E a t h o r n e d i d n o t prove t h a t h i s c o n d i t i o n had s i g n i f i c a n t l y d e t e r i o r a t e d b e t w e e n t h e t i m e he was f o u n d c o m p e t e n t t o s t a n d t r i a l a n d t h e t i m e he p l e d g u i l t y . U n l e s s t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s c h a n g e , an accused i s not e n t i t l e d t o a separate determination of h i s c o m p e t e n c e t o p l e a d g u i l t y a f t e r b e i n g f o u n d c o m p e t e n t t o s t a n d t r i a l b e c a u s e t h e same s t a n d a r d a p p l i e s . U n i t e d S t a t e s ex r e l . H e r a l v. F r a n z e n , 667 14 CR-08-1229 F.2d 633, 638 ( 7 t h C i r . 1 9 8 1 ) . See a l s o A t w e l l v. S t a t e , 354 So. 2d 30 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977), c e r t . d e n i e d , Ex p a r t e A t w e l l , 354 So. 2d 39 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) ; A n n o t . 37 A.L.R. Fed. 356 (1978)." Eathorne State, "the v. 346 State, So. trial previous 448 2d 22, of appellant's counsel appellant's order at and See ( A l a . C r i m . App. also White 1977)(holding competency, the assertions overturn of the trial State, judge's 724 So. 2d 557, 565 hearings, we cannot say that the plea. reviewing totality 'Determination of of the v. United States, the G r i f f i t h v. W y r i c k , 527 a large extent, i t is 418 F.2d to mental capacity, circumstances defendant's c e r t a i n l y c r i t i c a l i n determining Ford (Ala. trial Eathorne's the her Reviewing the e n t i r e r e c o r d , i n c l u d i n g the at examined the judge abused h i s or Compare E a t h o r n e v. S t a t e , 448 ("In the competency abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n . 449 the trial"). must f i n d t h a t t h e v. v. that e r r i n f i n d i n g t h a t , b a s e d on Tankersley 1998). 448. d i d n o t r a i s e a bona f i d e d o u b t as t o to we discretion." C r i m . App. 2d competency t o s t a n d determination, reports 25 judge d i d not verdict "In So. be 15 So. we have surrounding state of 2d mind the is the v o l u n t a r i n e s s of a p l e a . F.2d 109 court 855 (8th C i r . 1969). (8th C i r . 1975). determined by See However, t o examining the CR-08-1229 t o t a l i t y of the circumstances surrounding the p l e a i n s t e a d of solely on t h e b a s i s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s U n i t e d S t a t e s ex r e l . R o b i n s o n subsequent v. H o u s e w r i g h t , testimony. 525 F.2d 988 ( 7 t h C i r . 1 9 7 5 ) ; C a l a b r e s e v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 507 F.2d 259 ( 1 s t Cir. 1 9 7 4 ) ; F o r d v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , s u p r a . O t h e r w i s e e v e r y p l e a w o u l d be s u b j e c t t o s u c c e s s f u l a t t a c k . ' F.2d 372, 373-74 T o l e r v. W y r i c k , 563 (8th C i r . 1977)."). II. R o b e r t s a r g u e s t h a t h e r t r i a l c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e f o r failing t o p r o v i d e s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support her motion f o r a c o n t i n u a n c e and f o r f a i l i n g g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f m e n t a l t o pursue a defense of not disease or d e f e c t . A. Roberts's to present trial c o u n s e l was n o t i n e f f e c t i v e the testimony motion f o r a continuance. o f two d o c t o r s for failing i n support of the Roberts i s r e f e r r i n g t o the doctors who h a d e x a m i n e d h e r a n d who h a d a l l e g e d l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t she was incompetent negotiations to consider and and p l e a o f f e r . participate She f u r t h e r i n the plea alleges t h a t her c o u n s e l s h o u l d h a v e r e q u e s t e d t h a t she be r e a s s e s s e d as t o h e r c o m p e t e n c y . Had h e r c o u n s e l done s o , she a r g u e s , t h e r e s u l t o f 16 CR-08-1229 t h e p r o c e e d i n g s m i g h t have b e e n d i f f e r e n t . contends that incompetent had imprisonment to the plea. incompetent to stand undertaken whole shown would have been that she was she c o u l d have been with the p o s s i b i l i t y of parole Moreover, trial with her f u l l v e r d i c t by t h e j u r y . " At reassessment to consider the plea offer, sentenced t o l i f e pursuant her S p e c i f i c a l l y , she i f she h a d b e e n and t h e p r o c e e d i n g s participation, different, t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n had been "the evidence as a leading (Roberts's b r i e f , found to a different a t 52.) f o r a new t r i a l , Roberts r a i s e d the issue of i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s concerning her counsel's a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o provide the evidence necessary t o support the motion f o r a continuance. The p r o s e c u t o r a r g u e d t h a t t h e c o n t e n t i o n was " p r e d i c a t e d on t h e i d e a t h a t b u t f o r [ d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] n o t d o i n g X, Y, a n d Z, R o b e r t s w o u l d h a v e pleaded g u i l t y U n d e r s t a n d o r communicate o r c o o p e r a t e on p e r h a p s a l a s t m i n u t e p l e a o f f e r f r o m t h e S t a t e . T h e r e was no l a s t m i n u t e p l e a o f f e r . F o r a y e a r a n d a h a l f we were p r e p a r e d t o d i s c u s s some settlement that may arise from her remorse, a c c e p t a n c e o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . A n d what h a s n e v e r c h a n g e d f r o m t h e moment o f h e r a r r e s t u n t i l t o d a y i s t h a t s h e h a s shown n o t one i o t a o f r e m o r s e f o r t h e death of Darlene Roberts. I t i s her obstinance that c a u s e s h e r t o keep n o t h a v i n g t h i n g s done. B e c a u s e s h e ' s c o m p e t e n t , i t ' s h a r d t o f i n d a d o c t o r t o come up h e r e a n d s a y t h a t s h e i s n ' t . B e c a u s e she's 17 CR-08-1229 obstinate, i t ' s hard f o r people t o communicate w i t h her." (R. 1491-92.) The p r o s e c u t o r t h e n r e a d f r o m a l e t t e r wrote to the t r i a l As to the c o u r t p r a i s i n g her counsel's claim that counsel s h o u l d have had performance. her competency r e a s s e s s e d , t h e p r o s e c u t o r s t a t e d t h a t R o b e r t s was f u l l p o s s e s s i o n of obstinance. The wanted (R. [her] f a c i l i t i e s " Junkins present and clearly "in and t h a t h e r p r o b l e m Dr. the counsel argued testimony Grant at the of the two on the hearing t h a t he to t h e i r comment. motion letter alleged Dr. court acquiesced i n that was T r i a l c o u n s e l was Junkins and fully able to present the argued his claim of incompetency. ineffective i n h i s attempts the doctors to support the motion there letter Roberts's The r e c o r d f a i l s t o d i s c l o s e t h a t R o b e r t s ' s t r i a l was so was Dr. from trial t o do a J u n k i n s e x p l a i n e d t h a t he having surgery. from The for t o be p r e s e n t f o r t h e h e a r i n g b e c a u s e h i s d a u g h t e r unable The schedules. had doctors Dr. c o n t i n u a n c e b u t i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t m i g h t be d i f f i c u l t due was 1506.) record reveals that t r i a l to Roberts i s no indication to present 18 the testimony f o r a continuance. that Roberts was counsel of Further, p r e j u d i c e d by this CR-08-1229 failure. The trial court reviewed the letter sent Junkins, which a l s o i m p l i e d t h a t the other doctor, would most likely draw Roberts's medication. the Nor same i s there Dr. conclusions any visibly the i n her defense. a s s i s t e d and trial did hearing, so not there The conferred commence was time prosecutor with until for the counsel. the week new concerning medications to regulated. "The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t , i n 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 ) , e s t a b l i s h e d a t w o - p r o n g e d t e s t to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e . 19 she Moreover, following "'A convicted defendant's claim that c o u n s e l ' s a s s i s t a n c e was so d e f e c t i v e as t o r e q u i r e r e v e r s a l of a c o n v i c t i o n or death s e n t e n c e has two c o m p o n e n t s . F i r s t , the defendant must show that counsel's p e r f o r m a n c e was d e f i c i e n t . T h i s r e q u i r e s s h o w i n g t h a t c o u n s e l made e r r o r s so s e r i o u s t h a t c o u n s e l was n o t f u n c t i o n i n g as the "counsel" guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. S e c o n d , t h e d e f e n d a n t must show t h a t the d e f i c i e n t performance p r e j u d i c e d the defense. This r e q u i r e s showing t h a t counsel's e r r o r s were so s e r i o u s as to d e p r i v e the defendant of a f a i r t r i a l , a t r i a l whose r e s u l t i s r e l i a b l e . U n l e s s a d e f e n d a n t makes b o t h s h o w i n g s , i t c a n n o t be s a i d t h a t the c o n v i c t i o n or death sentence the unable to stated that her Dr. Grant, i n d i c a t i o n from t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e t r i a l p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t R o b e r t s was participate by the be CR-08-1229 r e s u l t e d from a breakdown i n the a d v e r s a r y process that renders the result unreliable.' " S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S. a t 687, 104 S.Ct. a t 2064. To e s t a b l i s h t h e p r e j u d i c e component, 'the defendant must show t h a t t h e r e i s a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t , 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 w o u l d have b e e n d i f f e r e n t . 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 t o undermine c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e outcome.' 466 U.S. a t 694, 104 S.Ct. a t 2068. "'Judicial scrutiny of counsel's p e r f o r m a n c e must be h i g h l y d e f e r e n t i a l . I t i s a l l too tempting f o r a defendant to second-guess counsel's a s s i s t a n c e a f t e r a c o n v i c t i o n o r a d v e r s e s e n t e n c e , and i t i s all too easy for a court, examining counsel's defense after i t has proved u n s u c c e s s f u l , to conclude that a p a r t i c u l a r act or omission of counsel was u n r e a s o n a b l e . C f . E n g l e v. I s a a c , 456 U.S. 107, 133-34, 102 S.Ct. 1558, 1574-75, 71 L.Ed.2d 783 ( 1 9 8 2 ) . A f a i r a s s e s s m e n t o f attorney performance r e q u i r e s t h a t every e f f o r t be made t o e l i m i n a t e t h e d i s t o r t i n g e f f e c t s of h i n d s i g h t , to r e c o n s t r u c t the circumstances of counsel's challenged c o n d u c t , and t o e v a l u a t e t h e c o n d u c t f r o m c o u n s e l ' s p e r s p e c t i v e a t the time. Because of t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n h e r e n t i n making t h e e v a l u a t i o n , a c o u r t must i n d u l g e a s t r o n g presumption t h a t counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that i s , the defendant must overcome t h e presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action " m i g h t be considered sound trial s t r a t e g y . " See Michel v. L o u i s i a n a , s u p r a , 350 U.S. [91] a t 101, 76 S.Ct. [158] a t 164, [100 L.Ed. 83 (1955) 20 CR-08-1229 "466 U.S. a t 689, 104 S.Ct. a t 2065. [ R o b e r t s ] i s required to 'affirmatively prove prejudice' in making c l a i m s t h a t h i s a t t o r n e y ' s performance was d e f i c i e n t . 466 U.S. a t 693, 104 S.Ct. a t 2067." Nicks v. State, 783 So. 2d 895, 918-919 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1999). Here, Roberts ineffective in has failed that he to prove allegedly that her counsel provided insufficient evidence to support the motion f o r a continuance. v. S e c r e t a r y , Dep't o f C o r r . , 397 Cir. 2005) (rejecting F.3d 1338, See H e r r i n g 1348-50 (11th claim that ineffective-assistance H e r r i n g ' s counsel d i d not conduct was a meaningful investigation i n t o h i s m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n where H e r r i n g ' s m o t h e r was only the m i t i g a t i o n w i t n e s s and c o u n s e l d i d n o t i n t r o d u c e e v i d e n c e f r o m h o s p i t a l r e c o r d s i n c o u n s e l ' s p o s s e s s i o n showing b r a i n damage and m e n t a l evaluated defendant intelligence; defendant's r e t a r d a t i o n o r c a l l p s y c h o l o g i s t who pretrial t h e s e were t a c t i c a l as having dull normal decisions). B. R o b e r t s has a l s o f a i l e d t o meet h e r b u r d e n o f p r o o f 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 , c l a i m t h a t her t r i a l (466 U.S. c o u n s e l was 21 668 (1984), t o s u p p o r t her ineffective for failing to CR-08-1229 p u r s u e a d e f e n s e o f n o t g u i l t y by r e a s o n o f m e n t a l d i s e a s e or defect. The record Roberts's defect had p l e a of not after issues and impaired. was The she depression, the she filed. although indicates had guilty by evaluated forensic a that long particularly trial counsel withdrew reason of mental d i s e a s e or pursuant to a motion that he psychiatrist history suffered of from determined that, mental-health-related b i p o l a r disease and she showed no s i g n s t h a t h e r c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s were As t o h e r m e n t a l s t a t e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e offense, r e p o r t from the examiner s t a t e d : "The D e f e n d a n t a t t h i s t i m e i s a b l e t o p r o v i d e e x t e n s i v e d e t a i l s and i n f o r m a t i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h e v e n t s and b e h a v i o r s l e a d i n g up t o t h e i n d e x c r i m e and a l s o her r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the v i c t i m . She reports that the victim had been c a l l i n g and h a r a s s i n g h e r f o r a l o n g p e r i o d o f t i m e . She i s a b l e t o p r o v i d e e x t e n s i v e d e t a i l s and i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t her activities and behavior i n the time frame c o n t i g u o u s w i t h t h e i n d e x c r i m e . No i m p a i r m e n t o f r e a l i t y c o n t a c t i s n o t e d and no a b e r r a t i o n s of thought or c o g n i t i v e impediments are noted t h a t would have i n t e r f e r e d w i t h her a b i l i t y t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e n a t u r e and q u a l i t y o f h e r a c t i o n s a t t h a t t i m e . " (C. 2370.) The at the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t Roberts s t a l k e d the v i c t i m time of the offense, laid 22 i n wait f o r the victim and, to CR-08-1229 drive by, c o n c e a l e d her i d e n t i t y with sunglasses, a hooded s w e a t - s h i r t , a n d a b a s e b a l l h a t w i t h h e r h a i r p u l l e d up u n d e r the h a t . She a l s o wore a s u r g i c a l mask t o c o n c e a l h e r nose She r e m a i n e d i n t h e v e h i c l e w h i l e h e r accomplice s t o o d o u t s i d e w i t h t h e hood o f t h e v e h i c l e r a i s e d , pretending and mouth. t o need a s s i s t a n c e . When t h e v i c t i m Roberts's accomplice attempted t o bind escaped. Roberts accomplice t o o k up c h a s e u s i n g t h e v i c t i m ' s v e h i c l e . chased stopped t o render a i d , the v i c t i m a n d g a g h e r , b u t she on foot, while Roberts jumped i n t o t h e v e h i c l e , a n d t h e v i c t i m was e v e n t u a l l y and shot. "'"A d i s t i n c t i o n must be made b e t w e e n a f a i l u r e t o i n v e s t i g a t e the mental h i s t o r y o f an a c c u s e d a n d t h e r e j e c t i o n o f i n s a n i t y as a d e f e n s e a f t e r p r o p e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 'An a t t o r n e y w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e experience i n c r i m i n a l m a t t e r s and, t h e r e f o r e , i n d e a l i n g w i t h a w i d e r a n g e o f p e o p l e ... may be presumed t o have some ability to evaluate the mental capacity of h i s c l i e n t . ' U n i t e d S t a t e s ex r e l . R i v e r a v . F r a n z e n , 594 F. Supp. 198, 202 (N.D. I l l . 1984). 'As a practical matter, when d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r t o p r e s e n t an i n s a n i t y defense, the c r i m i n a l defendant's lawyer i s t r u l y the f i n a l p s y c h i a t r i s t . I t i s not the r o l e o f a c o u r t t o doubt h i s judgment T r i a l c o u n s e l may n o t r e j e c t t h e i n s a n i t y defense '"without pursuing the basic i n q u i r i e s necessary t o evaluate i t s merits i n t e l l i g e n t l y . " ' R i v e r a , 594 F. Supp. a t 23 her found CR-08-1229 203. See a l s o M a r t i n v. M a g g i o , 711 F.2d 1273, 1280 (5th C i r . 1983), rehearing denied, 739 F.2d 184 ( 5 t h C i r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 469 U.S. 1028, 105 S . C t . 447, 83 L.Ed. 2d 373 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ; P i c k e n s v. L o c k h a r t , 714 F.2d 1455, 1467 ( 8 t h C i r . 1983) ( ' I t i s only a f t e r a f u l l i n v e s t i g a t i o n of a l l the m i t i g a t i n g circumstances t h a t c o u n s e l can make an i n f o r m e d , t a c t i c a l d e c i s i o n a b o u t w h i c h i n f o r m a t i o n w o u l d be t h e most h e l p f u l to the c l i e n t ' s case')." " ' D i l l v. S t a t e , 484 So. 2d 491, 498 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1985) ( e m p h a s i s o r i g i n a l ) . See a l s o Roy v. S t a t e , 680 So. 2d 936 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) . ' " Payne v. S t a t e , affirmed, Ex quoting, App. 791 So. 2d 383, 401 parte Samra v. S t a t e , the , 683 So. 2d 458 771 So. 2d 1108, 1120 1999), ( A l a . 1996), ( A l a . Crim. 1999). Here, a l t h o u g h her Payne ( A l a . C r i m . App. actions time d i d not i n d i c a t e that of psychiatrist introduced Roberts had a h i s t o r y of mental problems, the offense confirmed expert and this she was a report assessment. testimony as legally by insane a Defense to her mental at forensic counsel illness for purposes o f m i t i g a t i o n d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y phase of her t r i a l , and the t r i a l court found the existence f a c t o r that her capacity to appreciate conduct or t o conform i t to 24 of the m i t i g a t i n g the c r i m i n a l i t y of her the requirements of law was CR-08-1229 s u b s t a n t i a l l y impaired. trial § 1 3 A - 5 - 5 1 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. The court a l s o found the e x i s t e n c e of the m i t i g a t i n g f a c t o r t h a t t h e c a p i t a l o f f e n s e was c o m m i t t e d w h i l e she was u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e of extreme mental o r emotional 5-51 ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975. The t r i a l disturbance. court noted § 13A- that these f i n d i n g s d i d not dispute or c o n t r a d i c t the expert's f i n d i n g i n his report concerning Roberts's o f t h e o f f e n s e , as t h e l a t t e r for insanity, which mental c o n d i t i o n a t the time i s b a s e d on t h e l e g a l i s different. Thus, standard the t r i a l court u l t i m a t e l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t , d e s p i t e t h e j u r y ' s recommendation of a sentence of death, the m i t i g a t i n g f a c t o r s outweighed the a g g r a v a t i n g f a c t o r s and sentenced Roberts t o l i f e without was the p o s s i b i l i t y thus effective of parole. Roberts's i n presenting imprisonment trial sufficient counsel evidence to p e r s u a d e t h e j u d g e t h a t t h e l e s s e r s e n t e n c e was a p p r o p r i a t e t o her case. "'When t h i s assistance counsel's court of counsel, c o n d u c t was i s reviewing we a claim of indulge a strong presumption appropriate and r e a s o n a b l e . S t a t e , 484 So. 2d 5 3 1 , 534 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 5 ) . ' State, 629 So. 2d 6, 9 ineffective ( A l a . C r . App. 25 1992)." that Luke v. H a l l f o r d v. State v. CR-08-1229 T a r v e r , 629 So.2d 14, 17 of the evidence and ( A l a . C r . App. expert 1993). opinion, trial Here, i n l i g h t counsel made t a c t i c a l d e c i s i o n t o w i t h d r a w t h e p l e a o f n o t g u i l t y by of mental d i s e a s e or d e f e c t . o v e r w h e l m i n g , and t r i a l concerning sentence her from history the of a b l e t o use t h e mental advisory jury imprisonment without p a r o l e . reason The e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t R o b e r t s c o u n s e l was disease verdict of to a was evidence reduce death to her life Thus, R o b e r t s has f a i l e d t o show t h a t she s u f f e r e d p r e j u d i c e as t h e r e s u l t o f t r i a l counsel's performance. III. Although convictions not and raised as sentences an issue violate on appeal, the p r i n c i p l e s Roberts's of double- j e o p a r d y and a f f e c t e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n . convicted of two C o u n t s 2 and counts of capital murder, as She was charged in 3 o f her i n d i c t m e n t , f o r t h e murder o f Roberts during a kidnapping. Darlene C o u n t 2 c h a r g e d t h a t she caused D a r l e n e R o b e r t s ' s d e a t h by s h o o t i n g h e r w i t h a s h o t g u n d u r i n g her abduction or attempted abduction with the intent inflict i n j u r y upon h e r o r t o v i o l a t e h e r s e x u a l l y . charged that she caused D a r l e n e R o b e r t s ' s d e a t h by 26 to Count 3 shooting CR-08-1229 her w i t h a shotgun d u r i n g her a b d u c t i o n or attempted a b d u c t i o n with the i n t e n t to t e r r o r i z e her. These c o n v i c t i o n s a r e b a s e d on t h e same o f f e n s e c o m m i t t e d b y a l t e r n a t i v e means. In D a v i s v. S t a t e , So. 3d , [Ms. CR-08-0240, A u g u s t ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 9 ) , 7, 2009] D a v i s was charged w i t h , c o n v i c t e d o f a n d s e n t e n c e d f o r two c o u n t s o f k i d n a p p i n g as t o e a c h o f t h r e e v i c t i m s a n d t h i s c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t h i s right t o be Court free from double j e o p a r d y was v i o l a t e d . This stated: "As p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , a k i d n a p p i n g i s c o m p l e t e when a v i c t i m i s abducted w i t h the i n t e n t t o secrete the v i c t i m or deadly force i s used or the p e r p e t r a t o r t h r e a t e n s t o u s e s u c h f o r c e . Commentary, § 13A-6-43, A l a . C o d e 1975. 'The p r i m e i n g r e d i e n t i s t h e t a k i n g or d e t a i n i n g o f a p e r s o n a g a i n s t h i s w i l l and without a u t h o r i t y of law.' I d . " B e c a u s e m u l t i p l e p u n i s h m e n t s were i m p o s e d u n d e r s e p a r a t e s u b s e c t i o n s o f § 13A-6-43, A l a . C o d e 1975, 'when t h e a c t i o n s described i n each of those s u b s e c t i o n s [were] b a s e d on t h e same c o n d u c t o f t h e a c c u s e d a g a i n s t t h e same v i c t i m , ' d o u b l e - j e o p a r d y p r i n c i p l e s were v i o l a t e d . Egbuonu v. S t a t e , 993 So. 2d 35, 43 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2007) . See a l s o Ex p a r t e Robey, 920 So. 2d 1069, 1070 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) ; a n d Ex p a r t e R i c e , 766 So. 2d 143, 148 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) . " D a v i s v. S t a t e , for multiple counts So. 3d a t . Thus, D a v i s ' s c o n v i c t i o n s o f t h e same o f f e n s e b y a l t e r n a t e v i o l a t e d h i s r i g h t s t o be f r e e f r o m d o u b l e j e o p a r d y . 27 means CR-08-1229 Here, Roberts's convictions f o r t h e murder of Darlene R o b e r t s d u r i n g h e r k i d n a p p i n g b y a l t e r n a t e means o f k i d n a p p i n g v i o l a t e d h e r r i g h t s t o be f r e e f r o m d o u b l e Moreover, Roberts's conviction jeopardy. for intentional murder, a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e o f c a p i t a l murder under count t h e i n d i c t m e n t , was b a s e d on t h e same m u r d e r . conviction for intentional murder also 1 of Therefore, her violated her rights u n d e r t h e D o u b l e J e o p a r d y C l a u s e b e c a u s e t h e y were c o n v i c t i o n s for both a greater and a lesser-included offense. See D e a r d o r f f v . S t a t e , 6 So. 3d 1205, 1215 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2004) (convictions for capital murder f o r murder d u r i n g a r o b b e r y and f o r f i r s t d e g r e e t h e f t o f p r o p e r t y b a s e d on t h e same t h e f t underlying the robbery i n the c a p i t a l offense v i o l a t e d doublejeopardy principles). " S i n c e t h e d e c i s i o n i n R o l l i n g [ v . S t a t e , 673 So.2d 812 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) ] , t h i s C o u r t has continued to hold that certain double-jeopardy claims implicate the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the t r i a l court and, t h e r e f o r e , a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o w a i v e r . See, e.g., P o w e l l v. S t a t e , 854 So. 2d 1206 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 2 ) ; Deas v. S t a t e , 844 So. 2d 1286 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 2 ) ; H a l e v. S t a t e , 831 So. 2d 639 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 1 ) ; P e t e r s o n v. S t a t e , 842 So. 2d 734, 735 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2001) ( o p i n i o n on r e t u r n t o r e m a n d ) ; G r a y s o n v. S t a t e , 824 So. 2d 804 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f ' d , 824 So. 2d 844 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ; Simmons v. S t a t e , 797 So. 2d 1134 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ; L o g g i n s v. S t a t e , 771 So. 2d 1070 ( A l a . 28 CR-08-1229 C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , a f f ' d , 771 So. 2d 1093 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; L o r a n c e v. S t a t e , 770 So. 2d 644 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ; B o r d e n v. S t a t e , 711 So. 2d 498 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , a f f ' d , 711 So. 2d 506 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) ; and D o z i e r v. S t a t e , 706 So. 2d 1287 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 9 9 7 ) . L i k e R o l l i n g , most o f t h o s e d e c i s i o n s involved simultaneous convictions f o r both a greater and a l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e . " S t r a u g h n v. S t a t e , 876 So. 2d 492, 508 See also, Ex p a r t e (Benefield's claim first-degree rape degree sexual jurisdictional Benefield, that and he ( A l a . C r i m . App. 932 So. 2d 92, could not be 93 ( A l a . 2005) convicted the l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d offense abuse a r i s i n g 2003) . of of both first- o u t o f t h e same a c t p r e s e n t e d a issue). ' " S e c t i o n 1 3 A - 1 - 8 ( b ) ( 2 ) , A l a . C o d e 1975, e s t a b l i s h e s : "'"When t h e same c o n d u c t o f a d e f e n d a n t may e s t a b l i s h t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f more t h a n one o f f e n s e , t h e d e f e n d a n t may be p r o s e c u t e d f o r e a c h s u c h o f f e n s e . He may n o t , h o w e v e r , be c o n v i c t e d o f more t h a n one o f f e n s e i f ... [ o ] n e o f f e n s e i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e o t h e r , as defined in Section 13A-1-9 [the lesser-included offense statute] " '"As we s t a t e d i n Adams v. S t a t e , 955,So. 2d 1 0 3 7 , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 3 ) : "'"A d e f e n d a n t c a n n o t be c o n v i c t e d o f b o t h a c a p i t a l o f f e n s e and a l e s s e r o f f e n s e t h a t i s i n c l u d e d i n the c a p i t a l charge. See M a n g i o n e v. S t a t e , 740 So. 2d 444 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ; B o r d e n v. S t a t e , 711 So. 2d 498 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) , a f f ' d , 711 So. 29 CR-08-1229 2d 506 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . As t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d i n Mangione: "'"'While the appellant was properly c h a r g e d w i t h t h e two c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s , s e e B o r d e n , 711 So. 2d a t 503-04, n. 3, a n d b o t h o f f e n s e s were p r o p e r l y submitted to the jury, the p r o h i b i t i o n against double jeopardy was v i o l a t e d when t h e a p p e l l a n t was convicted of the c a p i t a l offense of murder d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f a k i d n a p p i n g under Count I o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t a n d a l s o was c o n v i c t e d of t h e l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e of i n t e n t i o n a l murder under Count I I of t h e i n d i c t m e n t , because t h e "same m u r d e r was an e l e m e n t o f the capital offense and t h e i n t e n t i o n a l murder c o n v i c t i o n . " B o r d e n , 711 So. 2d a t 503. See a l s o C o r a l v. S t a t e , 628 So.2d 954, 958 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), aff'd, 628 So. 2d 1004 ( A l a . 1993), c e r t . denied, 511 U.S. 1012, 114 S . C t . 1387, 128 L.Ed. 2d 61 (1994) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e defendant's conviction of the lesser-included offense of i n t e n t i o n a l murder under a count a l l e g i n g the c a p i t a l offense of m u r d e r - r o b b e r y and h i s c o n v i c t i o n of the capital offense of murder-burglary violated the principles of double jeopardy where t h e same m u r d e r was an element of both c o n v i c t i o n s ) . ' "'"740 So. 2d a t 449."'" 30 CR-08-1229 Lewis v. S t a t e , , For entry 1270 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . this reason, this o f a new o r d e r . 152-53 cause must be remanded appellate for the 766 So. 2d 143, court's vacating one o f defendant's] c o n v i c t i o n s and i t s c o r r e s p o n d i n g sentence a l b e i t unintended, of n u l l i f y i n g a part the jury's verdict. the So. 3d 2004)). See Ex p a r t e R i c e , ( A l a . 1999) ("[A]n w o u l d have t h e e f f e c t , of 2, 2009] ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 9 ) q u o t i n g W h i t e v . S t a t e , 900 So. 2d 1249, [the [Ms. CR-06-1770, O c t o b e r We t h i n k t h e b e t t e r approach i s for C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s t o remand t h e c a s e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r t h e e n t r y o f a new o r d e r -- an o r d e r t h a t [the adjudges defendant] g u i l t y o f [the v i c t i m ' s ] murder and s e n t e n c e s him f o r t h a t s i n g l e offense."). Thus, t h i s c a u s e i s remanded f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o e n t e r a new o r d e r adjudging Roberts guilty of a single count o f c a p i t a l murder f o r the murder d u r i n g a f i r s t - d e g r e e k i d n a p p i n g o f D a r l e n e R o b e r t s a n d o f f i r s t - d e g r e e r o b b e r y as f o u n d b y t h e j u r y a n d i n c l u d e d i n c o u n t one o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t . Due r e t u r n s h a l l be f i l e d w i t h t h i s C o u r t w i t h i n 35 d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f this opinion. REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Kellum, J . , concurs. JJ., W i s e , P . J . , a n d W e l c h a n d Windom, concur i n the r e s u l t . 31

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.