REL:
08/26/2011
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, 2010-2011
CR-05-1203
H a r v e y L. W i n d s o r
v.
S t a t e o f Alabama
Appeal
from
St. Clair Circuit
(CC-88-115.60)
On Remand f r o m
PER
Court
t h e A l a b a m a Supreme
Court
CURIAM.
Harvey
dismissal
L. W i n d s o r a p p e a l e d
of h i s petition
the circuit
court's
f o rpostconviction
u n d e r R u l e 3 2 , A l a . R. C r i m . P.
relief
Windsor's p e t i t i o n
summary
filed
challenged
CR-05-1203
his
of
conviction
death.
Windsor
___
for capital
This Court
v.
State,
( A l a . Crim.
Supreme
Court
Alabama
stated
on
2009).
Court
a l l grounds
i n Windsor's
and
the
CR-05-1203,
for certiorari
Supreme
petition
affirmed
[Ms.
App.
murder
circuit
Aug.
Windsor
an
except
On
order
Ground
i s as
sentence
c o u r t ' s judgment.
7,
2009]
petitioned
review.
issued
petition,
his resulting
July
the
16,
denying
IV.
So.
Alabama
2010,
Ground
IV,
follows:
"In h i s a p p e l l a t e b r i e f to the Alabama Court of
Criminal
Appeals,
Mr.
Windsor
reasserted
that
c o u n s e l were i n e f f e c t i v e at the p e n a l t y phase of h i s
c a p i t a l f o r f a i l i n g to o b j e c t to the p r o s e c u t o r ' s
statement:
'You
may
disregard
their
mitigating
circumstances.'
( A p p . B r i e f , a t 5 4 ; PC. 206.)
As
Mr. W i n d s o r e x p l a i n e d , t h i s i s an i m p r o p e r s t a t e m e n t
of the law.
Despite p r e s e n t i n g t h i s a l l e g a t i o n , the
C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s f a i l e d t o a d d r e s s i t and
Mr. W i n d s o r e x p l a i n e d a s much i n h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r
r e h e a r i n g and s u p p o r t i n g b r i e f
submitted to
that
court.
This Court
s h o u l d now
grant
certiorari
pursuant to Rule 39(a)(1)(C) to e x p l a i n that
the
Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals
i s r e q u i r e d to
address
each
claim
and
allegation
presented
in
an
appellant's brief."
petition,
p.
23.)
2
the
Windsor's
"IV.
T H I S COURT SHOULD GRANT C E R T I O R A R I PURSUANT TO
RULE 3 9 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( C ) [ , A L A . R. A P P . P.,] TO E X P L A I N THAT
THE
COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEALS
IS
OBLIGATED
TO
ADDRESS EACH C L A I M AND
ALLEGATION RAISED
IN
AN
APPELLANT'S BRIEFS.
(Windsor's
3d
as
CR-05-1203
In
the
i t s order granting Windsor's p e t i t i o n
Alabama
Supreme C o u r t
as t o Ground I V ,
stated:
" I T I S FURTHER ORDERED t h a t t h e R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e
Procedure
a r e suspended, and t h a t t h i s
cause i s
remanded t o t h e Alabama C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s t o
address t h e c l a i m o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r i n Ground IV,
p e t i t i o n a t p. 2 3 . See R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a b a m a R u l e s o f
Appellate Procedure."
1
In
accordance
instructions,
entire
this
we
argument
Court
with
now
the
address
Windsor's
regarding this
consisted
Alabama
claim
Supreme
claim.
Windsor's
inhisinitial
of the following
Court's
brief to
paragraph:
"As i n t h e g u i l t p h a s e , t r i a l c o u n s e l was a l s o
i n e f f e c t i v e a t s e n t e n c i n g b y f a i l i n g t o o b j e c t t o an
improper
and p r e j u d i c i a l
statement
made b y t h e
p r o s e c u t o r i n c l o s i n g argument. The p r o s e c u t o r t o l d
the
jury:
' Y o u may
disregard
their
mitigating
circumstances' (R1100).
This
i s an
outrageous
misstatement
of the law; t r i a l
counsel d i d not
obje c t . "
(Windsor's
verbatim
his
brief,
p.
i n Windsor's
second
claim
54.)
This
amended R u l e
("Claim
paragraph
32 p e t i t i o n
II") i n that
also
appears
as a p a r t o f
petition.
R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. A p p . P., s t a t e s : " I n e a c h c a s e i n
i
w h i c h t h e [ C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s ] a f f i r m s t h e judgment or
o
o r d e r a p p e a l e d from w i t h o u t w r i t i n g an o p i n i o n , t h e c o u r t
s h a l l d e s i g n a t e t h e c a s e a s a 'No O p i n i o n ' c a s e , b u t t h e c o u r t
shall
write
a
memorandum
addressing
the
appellant's
c o n t e n t i o n s a n d g i v i n g a r e a s o n f o r r e j e c t i n g t h e m . " We n o t e
t h a t t h e r e was a n o p i n i o n i s s u e d i n t h i s c a s e .
1
3
CR-05-1203
Claim
II
allegations
in
of
Windsor's
ineffective
p e n a l t y phase.
assistance
included
of
during
the
address
W i n d s o r ' s a l l e g a t i o n , as q u o t e d a b o v e , t h a t h i s t r i a l
counsel
ineffective
statement
that
circumstances."
however,
and
C r i m . P.,
as
for
not
objecting
"[y]ou
may
The
circuit
2
cited
the
Windsor's
prosecutor
c i r c u i t court d i d not
counsel
several
specifically
was
The
petition
Rule
reasons
challenge
to
disregard
32.6(b)
court
and
the
their
dismissed
Rule
prosecutor's
mitigating
Claim
32.7(d),
II,
Ala.
R.
of
the
for i t s dismissal.
to
this
particular
statement
i s s i m i l a r to his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
claim challenging his t r i a l
prosecutor's
counsel's
f a i l u r e to object to
s t a t e m e n t d u r i n g the g u i l t phase t h a t "[w]e
have t o g i v e Harvey Windsor the b e n e f i t of the doubt."
the
don't
In
our
I n h i s i n i t i a l b r i e f to t h i s Court,
Windsor d i d
not
challenge the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e to s p e c i f i c a l l y address
his
claim that his t r i a l
counsel
was
ineffective for
not
objecting
to
the
prosecutor's
statement
that
"[y]ou
may
disregard t h e i r m i t i g a t i n g circumstances."
Instead, Windsor
waited u n t i l h i s rehearing a p p l i c a t i o n to attempt to challenge
the
circuit
court's
failure
to s p e c i f i c a l l y address
that
particular claim.
Therefore,
t h i s i s s u e i s not
properly
b e f o r e us.
See W a t e r W o r k s & S e w e r B d . o f C i t y o f S e l m a v .
R a n d o l p h , 833 So. 2 d 604, 608
( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ("The w e l l - s e t t l e d
r u l e o f t h i s C o u r t p r e c l u d e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a r g u m e n t s made
f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on r e h e a r i n g . " ) .
See a l s o B o y d v . S t a t e ,
913 So. 2 d 1 1 1 3 ,
1122-23 ( A l a . C r i m . App.
2003).
2
4
CR-05-1203
o r i g i n a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of Windsor's
his
Rule
rejection
"[w]e
have
we
affirmed
circuit
court's
c l a i m that the p r o s e c u t o r , by
stating,
t o g i v e Harvey
the
Windsor
the benefit
h a d m i s s t a t e d t h e l a w on t h e p r e s u m p t i o n
the
State's
reasonable
portion
petition,
of Windsor's
don't
doubt,"
and
32
appeal of the dismissal of
doubt.
burden
of
proving
Specifically,
of the c i r c u i t
we
his
of innocence
guilt
adopted
of the
the
beyond
a
following
court's order:
"'In
B u t l e r v . S t a t e , 659 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 1 ( A l a . C r i m .
App.
1995), the Alabama Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals
reviewed the prosecutor's c l o s i n g statement i n which
he made t h e same comment t h a t W i n d s o r c o n t e n d s was
improper.
The A l a b a m a C o u r t o f A p p e a l s h e l d t h a t
"viewing the prosecutor's statement i n the context
of
the entire t r i a l ,
i t c a n n o t be s a i d t h a t
this
statement
affected
the fairness
of the
trial,
e s p e c i a l l y i n the l i g h t of the complete i n s t r u c t i o n s
as t o t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f g i v e n b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t
to
the jury."
L i k e the judge at B u t l e r ' s
trial,
J u d g e A u s t i n [ , who p r e s i d e d o v e r W i n d s o r ' s
trial,]
t h o r o u g h l y e x p l a i n e d t h e concept o f r e a s o n a b l e doubt
and t h e S t a t e ' s b u r d e n o f p r o o f t o t h e j u r o r s i n h i s
g u i l t phase j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s .
(R. 1 0 4 1 - 1 0 4 3 ) T h i s
C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s comment " d i d n o t
h a v e an u n f a i r p r e j u d i c i a l i m p a c t on t h e j u r y o r
seriously
affect
[Windsor's]
rights."
G u t h r i e v.
S t a t e , 689 S o . 2 d 9 3 5 , 942 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) .
This a l l e g a t i o n of i n e f f e c t i v e assistance of counsel
i s w i t h o u t m e r i t and i s d e n i e d . Rule 3 2 . 7 ( d ) , A l a .
R. C r i m . P.'"
Windsor,
So. 3d a t
Similarly,
(quoting the c i r c u i t court's order).
Windsor's
allegation
5
regarding
the
CR-05-1203
prosecutor's
mitigating
presided
a t Windsor's
those
(Ala.
other
weigh
App.
disregard
merit.
correctly
against
immediately
the mitigating
Moreover,
before
i tclear
The s t a t e m e n t
the
on
aggravating
827 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 ,
the prosecutor,
and a f t e r
against
Windsor
the jury
who
responsibility to
to the jury
circumstances
their
The j u d g e
3
instructed
and t h e j u r y ' s
1 998) .
c h a l l e n g e s , made
following
may
See, e.g., Burgess v. S t a t e ,
Crim.
circumstances.
the
trial
circumstances
statements
Windsor
"[y]ou
i s without
circumstances
circumstances.
162
that
circumstances"
the m i t i g a t i n g
weigh
statement
in
the
statement
that
i t should
the
aggravating
challenges
was made i n
context:
"[THE
PROSECUTOR:] ... A s I m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r a n d
the Judge w i l l t e l l you, t h e S t a t e i n t h i s phase o f
this
trial,
i s r e q u i r e d t o prove t o you t w e l v e
people
t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a t l e a s t one a g g r a v a t i n g
circumstance
as s e t o u t i n t h e C r i m i n a l Code o f
Alabama.
We a r e r e q u i r e d b y l a w t o p r o v e t o y o u
beyond
a reasonable
doubt
that
an
aggravating
c i r c u m s t a n c e does e x i s t i n o r d e r f o r you t o s e n t e n c e
him
to death.
The a g g r a v a t i n g
circumstance
as
relied
on b y t h e S t a t e - - n o t h i n g new t o y o u a n d
n o t h i n g you f u r t h e r need t o hear evidence on. I t i s
the a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e of a murder committed
d u r i n g a r o b b e r y . You have a l r e a d y f o u n d t h a t b e y o n d
a reasonable doubt.
Y o u f o u n d t h a t when y o u f o u n d
him
guilty.
The f i r s t
h u r d l e t h e S t a t e has i n
We
pleaded,
3
question
b u t even
whether
the allegation
i s sufficiently
i fi ti s , i ti s nonetheless without merit.
6
CR-05-1203
getting
a death
penalty in this
case
has
been
surmounted.
We m u s t p r o v e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t
t h e e x i s t e n c e o f one a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e .
That
b e i n g murder d u r i n g the commission
of a r o b b e r y .
You
t w e l v e p e o p l e have unanimously
decided
that.
The s e c o n d t h i n g a n d t h e l a s t t h i n g we m u s t do i s
convince
you
twelve people
t h a t the
aggravating
circumstance
t h a t you
have
found
outweighs
any
m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e o f f e r e d by t h e
defendant.
It outweighs
i t .
I t does not outnumber i t . I t
outweighs i t .
T h a t w i l l be a c a l l t h a t e a c h o f y o u
w i l l be a s k e d t o make.
The C o u r t w i l l t e l l y o u t h a t
at l e a s t t e n of your number, i n o r d e r t o r e t u r n a
s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h , t e n o f you must f i n d t h a t our
aggravating
circumstance
outweighs
whatever
m i t i g a t i n g circumstance they o f f e r .
Whatever they
may
a r g u e t o you, t e n o f y o u r number must f i n d i t
outweighs
i t . On y o u r v e r d i c t f o r m , y o u w i l l
be
a s k e d t o r e t u r n t h a t number f o r a s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h ,
w h e t h e r i t be t e n t o two o r e l e v e n t o one o r t w e l v e
to
zero.
Y o u do n o t h a v e t o g i v e a r e a s o n e v e r .
Y o u do n o t h a v e t o s e t o u t w h a t y o u r f i n d i n g s a r e .
Y o u may
disregard their mitigating
circumstances.
Ten o f y o u h a v e t o a g r e e . I e x p e c t a l l o f y o u
will
agree t h a t the a g g r a v a t i n g circumstance
outweighs
any
mitigating
circumstance.
What
are
the
m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s we a r e t a l k i n g a b o u t h e r e ?
W e l l , t h e y a r e i n t h e C o d e a n d t h e y a r e w h a t e v e r Mr.
Holladay
and
Mr.
Lowery
wants
to
tell
you
a b o u t - - w h a t e v e r Mrs. W i n d s o r w a n t s t o t e l l you a b o u t
him
not
being
a
boy
scout
or
them
being
p o o r - - a n y t h i n g t h a t a j u r y wants to c o n s i d e r because
t h e d e f e n d a n t has t h a t r i g h t t o have you c o n s i d e r
e v e r y t h i n g you p o s s i b l y can a b o u t h i s l i f e .
You a r e
n o t up h e r e t o g u e s s w h a t m i g h t h a v e h a p p e n e d t o
H a r v e y Lee W i n d s o r .
This v e r d i c t i s not based
on
s u p p o s i t i o n , j u s t a s t h e l a s t one was n o t . Y o u a r e
n o t up h e r e t o t h i n k w h a t m i g h t h a v e b e e n .
You a r e
h e r e t o d e c i d e what i s r i g h t .
That person
over
there
i s the person
t h a t you
know t h a t
killed
R a y f o r d H o w a r d - - n o t w h a t he m i g h t h a v e d o n e .
Mr.
H o l l a d a y o r Mr. L o w e r y w i l l t e l l y o u maybe he h a s no
7
CR-05-1203
s i g n i f i c a n t c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y - - s u r e he d o e s .
His
mama a d m i t t e d i t .
He h a s b e e n s i t t i n g i n p r i s o n f o r
- - s h e c a n ' t e v e n r e m e m b e r how l o n g .
They a r e g o i n g
t o t e l l y o u a m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e - - t h e c r i m e was
committed by another person and Harvey Lee Windsor
was a r e l a t i v e l y m i n o r p a r t i c i p a n t .
They a r e g o i n g
to
t e l l y o u maybe he h a d t h e i n t e n t t o r o b , b u t
c e r t a i n l y he d i d n ' t h a v e t h e i n t e n t t o k i l l .
You
have found t h a t .
I don't c a r e what t h e y t e l l y o u .
I d o n ' t c a r e how many b o y s c o u t m e e t i n g s he d i d n ' t
go t o .
I d o n ' t c a r e i f he i s f r o m t h e p o o r e s t
f a m i l y i n t h e w o r l d and never g o t t o see a movie.
I don't care i f h i s uncle d i d n ' t take him t o the
ballgame.
T h e y c a n s a y a n y t h i n g t h e y w a n t t o . The
f a c t s a r e w h a t y o u know t h e m t o b e . The r i g h t t h i n g
t o do i s s e n t e n c e H a r v e y L e e W i n d s o r t o d e a t h .
You
can f i n d a l l t h e m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s you want
to.
Y o u c a n go b a c k t o t h a t j u r y r o o m a n d s p e n d
f o u r o r f i v e h o u r s a n d d r e a m up some o f y o u r own
b e c a u s e t h a t i s y o u r r i g h t as j u r o r ; b u t y o u w i l l
never
convince
yourself
they
outweigh
the
aggravating circumstance."
(R.
1098-1101.)
statement
jury
When
disregard
Accordingly,
there
his
was
counsel
prosecutor's
dismissed
In
the
trial
i s no m e r i t
ineffective
statement
therefore,
court's
the
"[y]ou
and
instructions.
to Windsor's
for failing
that
circumstances,"
allegation
to
may
the c i r c u i t
object
to the
disregard
court
that
their
properly
that claim.
our o r i g i n a l
judgment.
i n context,
t h a t Windsor c h a l l e n g e s d i d not improperly urge the
to
mitigating
placed
o p i n i o n , we a f f i r m e d t h e c i r c u i t
For the reasons
court's
s t a t e d i n t h a t o p i n i o n and f o r the
8
CR-05-1203
additional
circuit
reasons
court's
noted i n t h i s
judgment
opinion,
dismissing
we
again affirm
Windsor's
Rule
the
32
petition.
AFFIRMED.
Welch,
P.J.,
a n d Windom, K e l l u m , B u r k e ,
concur.
9
and
Joiner, J J . ,
