Harvey L. Windsor v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 . ,

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.