Dominique Ray v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 02/04/2011 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-06-2143 Dominique Ray v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal KELLUM, The Holman from D a l l a s C i r c u i t (CC-97-375.60) Court Judge. appellant, Correctional Dominique Ray, an inmate Facility, appeals on d e a t h the denial row a t o fh i 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 r e l i e f f i l e d pursuant t o Rule 32, Ala. R. C r i m . P. CR-06-2143 In 1999, during the Ray was course c o n v i c t e d of murdering of 40(a)(2) and 11 recommended - 1, (a)(3), a rape and a robbery. A l a . Code 1975. that Ray be Tiffany The See jury, sentenced Harville by to §13A-5a vote death. c i r c u i t c o u r t f o l l o w e d t h e j u r y ' s recommendation and Ray to death. direct App. appeal. 2001), denied, 534 In Dallas U.S. Circuit 2003. issued See cert. February November court Ray's a The sentenced c o n v i c t i o n and s e n t e n c e were a f f i r m e d Ray v. State, denied, 1142 809 809 So. 2d 2d 891 ( A l a . 2001), So. 875 of on (Ala. Crim. cert. (2002). 2003, Ray Court. After 107-page filed He an a filed Rule an evidentiary order denying 32 petition in the amended petition in hearing, the relief. This circuit appeal followed. In i t s sentencing order, following facts we i n our quoted the circuit surrounding Tiffany o p i n i o n on direct court Harville's set out murder, appeal: "'On o r a b o u t A u g u s t 16, 1995, L a w r e n c e M i l t o n was o p e r a t i n g a t r a c t o r a n d b u s h h o g j u s t o f f C o u n t y R o a d 62 i n D a l l a s C o u n t y , A l a b a m a . A s M r . Milton went about h i s d u t i e s bushhogging the f i e l d , he d i s c o v e r e d the s k e l e t a l remains of T i f f a n y H a r v i l l e , who h a d b e e n m i s s i n g s i n c e on o r a b o u t J u l y 15, 1995. 2 the which CR-06-2143 " ' T i f f a n y H a r v i l l e was 15 y e a r s o f a g e a t t h e time o f h e r death. Mary Coleman, T i f f a n y ' s mother, d e s c r i b e d t h e l a s t time she [ h a d ] communicated w i t h her d a u g h t e r , T i f f a n y , i n J u l y 1995. M r s . Coleman s t a t e d t h a t s h e , M r s . C o l e m a n , was l e a v i n g t o w n f o r t h e e v e n i n g t o a t t e n d a U n i o n Workshop. She l e f t T i f f a n y a p p r o x i m a t e l y $6 s p e n d i n g money. Upon M r s . C o l e m a n ' s r e t u r n t o S e l m a on Sunday a f t e r n o o n , s h e d i s c o v e r e d t h a t h e r daughter had n o t been seen s i n c e 8:00 p.m. S a t u r d a y n i g h t . M r s . C o l e m a n d e s c r i b e d t h e e f f o r t s made t o l o c a t e T i f f a n y , a n d f u r t h e r r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t , D o m i n i q u e R a y , came t o h e r h o u s e to o f f e r h i s a s s i s t a n c e and share Mrs. Coleman's c o n c e r n f o r h e r m i s s i n g d a u g h t e r . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t the Defendant o f f e r e d t o d i s t r i b u t e f l i e r s , and a t o n e t i m e , o f f e r e d r e w a r d m o n e y t o l o c a t e T i f f a n y . On two other occasions before Tiffany's body was d i s c o v e r e d , t h e D e f e n d a n t c a l l e d M r s . C o l e m a n on t h e p h o n e t o make a g e n e r a l i n q u i r y a s t o M r s . C o l e m a n ' s condition. "'The i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o t h e d e a t h o f T i f f a n y H a r v i l l e continued f o r s e v e r a l months. There were numerous l e a d s and suspects, a n d a t one t i m e an i n d i v i d u a l was a r r e s t e d a n d h e l d w i t h o u t b o n d f o r the murder of Tiffany Harville. Finally, the codefendant i n t h i s c a s e , M a r c u s D. O w d e n , came f o r w a r d and gave t h e p o l i c e a f u l l a c c o u n t i n g o f t h e events and circumstances surrounding the death of T i f f a n y H a r v i l l e . Owden t e s t i f i e d a t [ t ] r i a l against t h e D e f e n d a n t R a y t h a t i t was t h e i r i n t e n t t o f o r m a mob o r a g a n g , a n d t h a t t h e y h a d i n t e n d e d t o f i n d T i f f a n y H a r v i l l e f o r the purpose of having sex with h e r . Owden s t a t e d t h a t h e d i d n o t k n o w T i f f a n y , b u t t h a t R a y d i d a n d t h a t i t was R a y ' s i d e a t o g o a n d g e t T i f f a n y . Owden t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y h a d t a l k e d about h a v i n g s e x w i t h h e r b e f o r e t h e y went t o h e r h o u s e t o g e t h e r . On t h e e v e n i n g o f J u l y 1 5 , 1 9 9 5 , Owden a n d R a y p i c k e d T i f f a n y u p a n d p r o c e e d e d t o take h e r t o [ t h e ] S a r d i s community l o c a t e d i n D a l l a s C o u n t y , A l a b a m a , o n o r n e a r H i g h w a y 4 1 . Owden s t a t e d t h a t t h e y h a d d e c i d e d t h e y were g o i n g t o a s k h e r f o r 3 CR-06-2143 sex f i r s t , and i f t h a t d i d n ' t work, t h a t they w o u l d t a k e i t . He d e s c r i b e d d u r i n g h i s t e s t i m o n y how h e a n d t h e D e f e n d a n t R a y [ h a d ] h a d s e x w i t h h e r a n d how she [ h a d ] p l e a d e d f o r h e l p . "'Owden t e s t i f i e d t h a t R a y c u t h e r t h r o a t a n d t h a t h e , O w d e n , c u t h e r a s w e l l . He t h e n d e s c r i b e d that they took part of her c l o t h i n g along with her p u r s e , w h i c h c o n t a i n e d $6 o r $ 7 . "'In addition t o the testimony o f M a r c u s D. Owden, t h e S t a t e o f f e r e d i n t o e v i d e n c e t h e s t a t e m e n t of t h e Defendant, Dominique Ray. I n h i s s t a t e m e n t , he a d m i t s t o h i s r o l e i n t h e r a p e a n d m u r d e r o f T i f f a n y H a r v i l l e , y e t a t t e m p t s t o e s t a b l i s h Owden a s the primary p e r p e t r a t o r . "'Dr. [James] Lauridson, the State Medical Examiner w i t h t h e Alabama Department o f F o r e n s i c S c i e n c e s , d e s c r i b e d 12 d e f e c t s i n t h e s k u l l w h i c h w e r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h s t a b - l i k e d e f e c t s . He [ w a ] s u n a b l e t o t e s t i f y w i t h r e g a r d t o s o f t t i s s u e wounds, due t o t h e d e c o m p o s i t i o n of the body.'" Ray, 809 So. 2 d a t 8 7 9 - 8 0 . Standard o f Review Ray filed appeals attacking sentence. the sole Crim. P., the denial h i s capital-murder According burden of a postconviction p e t i t i o n t o Rule of pleading conviction 3 2 . 3 , A l a . R. C r i m . and proof. Rule and 3 2 . 3 , A l a . R. shall have the burden of by a preponderance of the necessary to entitle the The s t a t e s h a l l h a v e t h e 4 death P., R a y h a s provides: "The petitioner pleading and p r o v i n g evidence the facts petitioner to relief. he CR-06-2143 burden o f p l e a d i n g any g r o u n d o f p r e c l u s i o n , but once a ground o f p r e c l u s i o n has been p l e a d e d , t h e p e t i t i o n e r s h a l l have the burden of d i s p r o v i n g i t s e x i s t e n c e by a preponderance of the e v i d e n c e . " (Emphasis added.) "Preponderance of the e v i d e n c e " i s d e f i n e d as: "The g r e a t e r w e i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e , n o t n e c e s s a r i l y established by the g r e a t e r number of witnesses t e s t i f y i n g t o a f a c t b u t by e v i d e n c e t h a t has t h e most c o n v i n c i n g f o r c e ; s u p e r i o r e v i d e n t i a r y weight t h a t , though not s u f f i c i e n t t o f r e e the mind w h o l l y from a l l reasonable doubt, i s s t i l l s u f f i c i e n t to i n c l i n e a f a i r a n d i m p a r t i a l m i n d t o one s i d e o f t h e issue rather than the o t h e r . " Black's Law Dictionary T h o u g h we 1220 (8th ed. 2004). r e v i e w e d t h e c l a i m s on R a y ' s d i r e c t appeal p l a i n e r r o r , the p l a i n - e r r o r s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w does not to a postconviction petition attacking c o n v i c t i o n and d e a t h s e n t e n c e . 3d 418, 424 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2d 1186 ( A l a . C r i m . App. (Ala. C r i m . App. Crim. App. Rule in 32 which State, 2007); 2006). 666 So. reviewing the c i r c u i t 91, State, addition, 93 v. S t a t e , State, State, 952 979 So. 13 So. 987 So. 2d 125 So. 2d 1149 (Ala. '[t]he procedural bars to a l l cases, force p e n a l t y has 2d v. apply capital-murder W a l d r o p v. Hall Gaddy v. "In Ferguson 2008); 2007); apply with equal the death See a for including been imposed.'" (Ala. Crim. court's rulings 5 App. those Brownless 1995). of v. When on t h e c l a i m s r a i s e d i n CR-06-2143 R a y ' s p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n , we a p p l y a n a b u s e - o f - d i s c r e t i o n standard. Ray Gaddy, first 952 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 5 4 . argues that the c i r c u i t the State's proposed argues i n brief: circumstances, where the order denying h i s Rule "Though here, stakes debatably i n the face are so high, 32 p e t i t i o n . permissible o f s o many justice rubber-stamping the State's proposed p. court erred i n adopting some concerns, demands order." in Ray more and than (Ray's b r i e f , a t 22.) "While the p r a c t i c e of adopting the s t a t e ' s proposed f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s i s s u b j e c t t o c r i t i c i s m , t h e g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t e v e n when t h e c o u r t a d o p t s proposed findings verbatim, the findings are those o f t h e c o u r t a n d may b e r e v e r s e d o n l y i f c l e a r l y erroneous. A n d e r s o n v . C i t y o f B e s s e m e r C i t y , N.C., 470 U.S. 5 6 4 , 1 0 5 S . C t . 1 5 0 4 , 84 L . E d . 2 d 518 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ; H u b b a r d v . S t a t e , 584 S o . 2 d 8 9 5 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) ; W e e k s v . S t a t e , 568 S o . 2 d 864 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 9 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , [498] U . S . [ 8 8 2 ] , 111 S . C t . 2 3 0 , 112 L . E d . 2 d 184 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ; M o r r i s o n v . S t a t e , 5 5 1 S o . 2 d 4 3 5 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 4 9 5 U.S. 9 1 1 , 110 S . C t . 1 9 3 8 , 1 0 9 L . E d . 2 d 3 0 1 ( 1 9 9 0 ) . " Bell See v. S t a t e , 593 So. 2 d 1 2 3 , 126 a l s o Dobyne v. S t a t e , 2000); Jones v. S t a t e , (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). 805 So. 2 d 7 3 3 , 741 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 753 So. 2 d 1 1 7 4 , 1180 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1999). 6 CR-06-2143 More recently C r i m . App. in 2 0 0 6 ) , we Hyde v. State, 950 So. 2d 344 (Ala. stated: " [ 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 d e n y i n g a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n for postconviction relief. See, e.g., C o r a l v . S t a t e , 900 So.2d 1274, 1288 (Ala. C r i m . App. 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. 2 d 159 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , and the cases cited therein. 'Alabama courts have consistently held t h a t e v e n when a t r i a l court adopts verbatim a party's proposed order, the 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 a r e t h o s e o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d t h e y may be r e v e r s e d o n l y i f t h e y a r e c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . ' McGahee v. S t a t e , 885 So. 2 d 1 9 1 , 2 2 9 - 3 0 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2003)." 950 So. 2d at However, "appellate prepared the Alabama Supreme courts m u s t be c a r e f u l to evaluate In court's reflect f i n d i n g s and conclusions of [Ms. admonished 1060413, March 19, the the that a claim that adopted independent trial 2010] court." So. 3d a by and Ex , 2010). Ingram, the adoption postconviction order has t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y and does not Ingram, (Ala. d r a f t e d by Court court verbatim impartial parte the order trial 371. stated Supreme of relief that i t Court the State's was held erroneous was based 7 that proposed in the circuit order denying because, i t said, part the on the personal CR-06-2143 knowledge and o b s e r v a t i o n s who actually signed the of the t r i a l order j u d g e when t h e j u d g e denying the postconviction p e t i t i o n was n o t t h e same j u d g e who h a d p r e s i d e d o v e r capital-murder statements trial. regarding and observations any confidence conclusions independent Our Supreme [Ms. that of law judge's judge's are the product decision June order, over the c i r c u i t a court S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t ' s , 130 S . C t . 2 2 1 7 trial undermines the t r i a l this came i n James that judge's after v. from i n adopting had v i o l a t e d State, Ingram We upheld the State's the State's and t h e U n i t e d o p i n i o n i n J e f f e r s o n v. Upton, (2010). We stated: "The main concerns the Supreme Court found o b j e c t i o n a b l e i n Ingram a r e n o t p r e s e n t i n this case; here, t h e same judge presided over both J a m e s ' s t r i a l a n d t h e R u l e 32 p r o c e e d i n g s . A l s o , a s we n o t e d i n o u r p r e v i o u s o p i n i o n i n t h i s c a s e , t h e 8 the ( A l a . Crim. f o rrehearing). verbatim and . issue So. 3d adopted claim knowledge' So. 3d a t 25, 2010] ( o p i n i o n on a p p l i c a t i o n order, of to consider i n Ingram of the findings of fact Ingram, Court's court's 'personal capital-murder the t r i a l judgment CR-04-0395, proposed order o f Ingram's opportunity circuit p a t e n t l y erroneous nature the t r i a l first App. 2006) a "[T]he Ingram's U.S. CR-06-2143 circuit proposed court allowed orders.' both 'parties to submit "In J e f f e r s o n v. Upton, [ U.S. , 130 S . C t . 2217 (2010),] the United States Supreme Court remanded J e f f e r s o n ' s habeas corpus p r o c e e d i n g s t o the lower court f o r that court t o determine whether the state court's factual findings warranted a presumption o f c o r r e c t n e s s . The S u p r e m e Court in granting relief stated: "'Although we have stated that a court's "verbatim adoption of findings of f a c t p r e p a r e d by p r e v a i l i n g p a r t i e s " s h o u l d be t r e a t e d as f i n d i n g s o f t h e c o u r t , we have also criticized that practice. A n d e r s o n [ v . B e s s e m e r C i t y , 470 U.S. [ 5 6 4 ] at 5 7 2 , 105 S . C t . 1 5 0 4 , 84 L . E d . 2 d 518 [(1985)]. A n d we h a v e n o t c o n s i d e r e d t h e lawfulness of, nor the a p p l i c a t i o n of the habeas statute t o , the use of such a p r a c t i c e where (1) a j u d g e s o l i c i t s t h e p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s e x p a r t e , (2) d o e s n o t p r o v i d e t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y an o p p o r t u n i t y to c r i t i c i z e the f i n d i n g s or t o submit h i s own, o r (3) a d o p t s f i n d i n g s t h a t c o n t a i n i n t e r n a l evidence s u g g e s t i n g t h a t the judge may n o t h a v e r e a d t h e m . C f . i d . , a t 5 6 8 , 470 U.S. 5 6 4 , 105 S . C t . 1 5 0 4 , 84 L . E d . 2 d 518; Ga.Code o f J u d i c i a l C o n d u c t , Canon 3(A)(4) (1993) (prohibiting ex parte judicial communications).'" James v. S t a t e , Here, the postconviction Ray's g u i l t So. circuit relief 3d a t judge was (on who the rehearing). signed same the order judge who presided a n d p e n a l t y p r o c e e d i n g s -- t h e j u d g e who Ray t o d e a t h . None o f t h e c o n c e r n s 9 t h e Supreme Court denying over sentenced stressed CR-06-2143 in Ingram are p r e s e n t detailed in this findings are not in this opinion, "clearly case. we Moreover, f o r the that hold reasons court's the circuit erroneous." II. Ray next Maryland, 373 argues U.S. 83 that the (1963), certain exculpatory to when evidence. the State failed from A l l e n N e t t l e s that, asserts, Harville's and that v. to furnish Ray Ray argues defense with C u r t i s Muse a third i t failed to -- person t o t h e New York P o l i c e ; furnish documents related to and that witness statements in Tiffany f u r n i s h defense copy of a l e t t e r certain Brady i t failed the implicated murder; violated Specifically, furnish statements Ray State with that i t failed Ray's prior a to capital- murder c o n v i c t i o n . The United suppression by States the Supreme C o u r t prosecution a c c u s e d upon r e q u e s t violates is material e i t h e r to g u i l t the good faith establish demonstrate: a of the Brady (1) that of due i n Brady h e l d evidence process favorable where the "the to an evidence or to punishment, i r r e s p e c t i v e of prosecution." violation, the that 373 [the prosecution 10 U.S. at 87. "To petitioner] must suppressed evidence; CR-06-2143 (2) that that exculpatory; parte evidence and Kennedy, (3) 472 When initially that So. denying was 2d relief favorable the evidence 1106, on to 1110 this [the was (Ala. claim, defendant] material." or Ex 1985). the circuit court stated: "Ray f a i l e d t o a l l e g e i n h i s amended R u l e 32 petition that these a l l e g e d Brady v i o l a t i o n s are b a s e d on n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e . Therefore, this Court finds these a l l e g a t i o n s are procedurally b a r r e d because t h e y c o u l d have been but were not r a i s e d a t t r i a l and b e c a u s e t h e y c o u l d have been b u t w e r e n o t r a i s e d on appeal." (C.R. 1190.) The law. 32 circuit "Because t h i s petition, [Ray] 'newly d i s c o v e r e d 397 court's 2009) based on suppression claims [Ms. can obtain evidence.'" CR-05-1203, A u g u s t 7, by 2009] c o u l d not State first relief presented only i f State, 791 29, Alabama in a i t Rule involves 2d 383, a l s o W i n d s o r v. State, [Ms. (Ala. 3d , So. Crim. a l l e g e that h i s Brady claims evidence continued or until that 2009] So. 11 3d , were any such have been r a i s e d at t r i a l . " ) ; C R - 0 3 - 1 9 0 2 , May with So. See discovered the consistent Payne v. 1999). ("Windsor d i d not newly is B r a d y c l a i m was ( A l a . C r i m . App. App. ruling alleged time as B u s h v. the State, (Ala. Crim. CR-06-2143 App. 2009) in the ("[B]ecause t h i s alleged Batson v i o l a t i o n i s r a i s e d a postconviction petition, requirements State, 44 So. failed to 3d plead f o r newly 1118, and 1144 to t h e p e t i t i o n e r must a l s o satisfy discovered evidence."); Davis ( A l a . Crim. prove the App. 2009) requirements v. ("Davis for newly discovered evidence."). "Newly d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e " Ala. R. Crim. P., i s d e f i n e d i n Rule 32.1(e), as: "Newly discovered material facts require that the c o n v i c t i o n or sentence by t h e c o u r t , because: ... which be v a c a t e d " ( 1 ) The f a c t s r e l i e d u p o n w e r e n o t known b y t h e p e t i t i o n e r o r t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s counsel a t the time of t r i a l or sentencing or i n time to f i l e a posttrial motion pursuant t o R u l e 24, o r i n t i m e t o be included in any previous collateral proceeding and could not have been d i s c o v e r e d by any o f t h o s e t i m e s t h r o u g h the e x e r c i s e of reasonable d i l i g e n c e ; "(2) cumulative The facts are not t o o t h e r f a c t s t h a t were " ( 3 ) The f a c t s d o n o t m e r e l y impeachment e v i d e n c e ; merely known; amount to " ( 4 ) I f t h e f a c t s h a d b e e n known a t the time of t r i a l or of sentencing, the r e s u l t p r o b a b l y would have been d i f f e r e n t ; and 12 CR-06-2143 "(5) The facts establish that the p e t i t i o n e r i s innocent of the crime f o r which t h e p e t i t i o n e r was convicted or s h o u l d n o t have r e c e i v e d t h e s e n t e n c e t h a t the p e t i t i o n e r r e c e i v e d . " Not that only d i d Ray f a i l h i s Brady to plead i n his postconviction c l a i m was b a s e d o n n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d but when t h e S t a t e alleged that this the above Ray grounds show t h a t t h i s evidence. was barred failed The discovered c l a i m was b a r r e d that h e was circuit court correctly held postconviction and prove that not required that proceeding the claim b a s e d on to discovered this claim because on Ray was based newly made the following t o Ray's f i r s t argument: evidence. Moreover, alternative evidence, c l a i m met t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f n e w l y i n Ray's to plead asserted petition the circuit court also f i n d i n g of fact i n regard "At the evidentiary hearing, Ray questioned [Attorney William] W h a t l e y a b o u t w h e t h e r he h a d r e c e i v e d c e r t a i n statements taken by I n v e s t i g a t o r [Roy] F r e i n e from A l l e n N e t t l e s and M i c h a e l Muse. W h a t l e y i n d i c a t e d he d i d n o t r e c a l l r e c e i v i n g t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s a n d t h a t , i f he h a d , he w o u l d h a v e u s e d them d u r i n g h i s c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n o f Roy F r e i n e t o s h o w t h a t s o m e o n e b e s i d e s R a y was p o s s i b l y i n v o l v e d i n T i f f a n y H a r v i l l e ' s murder. "As p o i n t e d o u t b y t h e S t a t e , W h a t l e y d i d c r o s s examined Freine about statements he took from N e t t l e s a n d Muse. F u r t h e r , F r e i n e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was p r e s e n t when W h a t l e y a n d t h e p r o s e c u t o r reviewed 13 CR-06-2143 his file. Freine also i n d i c a t e d that i f Whatley w a n t e d t o r e v i e w t h e f i l e he c o u l d h a v e a s l o n g a s the p r o s e c u t o r agreed. "Ray's t r i a l f o r H a r v i l l e ' s murder t o o k p l a c e i n J u l y 1999. Ray's e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g took place eight [ s i c ] y e a r s l a t e r on S e p t e m b e r 27-29, 2006. B a s e d on W h a t l e y ' s c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n of Freine at trial, i t i s obvious t o t h i s Court that Whatley r e c e i v e d t h e s t a t e m e n t s f r o m N e t t l e s a n d Muse a n d he s i m p l y f o r g o t i t o r he r e c e i v e d t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n the statements from the prosecutor or another source. I n any event, since the t r i a l record c l e a r l y proves Whatley had the information, this C o u r t c o n c l u d e s t h a t no B r a d y v i o l a t i o n occurred. T h i s C o u r t f i n d s t h a t Ray's Brady c l a i m i s w i t h o u t merit; therefore, i ti s denied." (C.R. 1190-91.) The record questioned of Ray's Investigator Sheriff's Department witnesses that Harville's murder. examination trial Roy about implicated 1 shows Freine of statements a third his the Dallas made person, The f o l l o w i n g o c c u r r e d of Investigator that Rod during by attorney County several Suttle, i n the cross- Freine: "[Defense counsel]: When you f i r s t talked with Dominique Ray i n A p r i l , t h e f i r s t statement t h a t you r e f e r r e d t o through here, Rod S u t t l e had a l r e a d y been charged? We h a v e t a k e n j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f t h i s C o u r t ' s r e c o r d s i n Ray's d i r e c t a p p e a l t o t h i s C o u r t . See N e t t l e s v . S t a t e , 731 S o . 2 d 626 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) . 1 14 CR-06-2143 "[Investigator Freine]: That i s correct. "[Defense counsel]: And you had statements from o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s t h a t R o d S u t t l e was t h e p e r s o n t h a t had committed t h e rape and murder o f T i f f a n y Harville? "[Investigator "[Defense Dominique Harville? F r e i n e ] : Yes. counsel]: Ray e v e r "[Investigator And said you had that a n y t h i n g about before Tiffany F r e i n e ] : Yes. " [ D e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] : Who w h e r e t h e i n d i v i d u a l s t h a t told you t h a t Rod S u t t l e had raped and killed Tiffany Harville? "[Investigator Williams. Freine]: Michael Muse and Kelvin "[Defense counsel]: Were t h e r e statements from o t h e r p e o p l e t h a t o v e r h e a r d Rod S u t t l e t a l k i n g about or making i n c r i m i n a t i n g statements about raping and murdering Tiffany H a r v i l l e ? " [ I n v e s t i g a t o r F r e i n e ] : They were t h e o n l y two t h a t s a i d h e was t a l k i n g a b o u t T i f f a n y t h a t I r e c a l l . "[Defense counsel]: Were t h e r e o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s that overheard him making i n c r i m i n a t i n g statements t h a t y o u t o o k t o be a b o u t T i f f a n y H a r v i l l e ? "[Investigator Freine]: "[Defense counsel]: were t h e r e ? "[Investigator How Freine]: Oh, y e s . many of those One, maybe t w o . 15 individuals CR-06-2143 "[Defense counsel]: And you h a d a t l e a s t two i n d i v i d u a l s t h a t made a s w o r n s t a t e m e n t t o y o u t h a t Rod S u t t l e h a d s t a b b e d T i f f a n y H a r v i l l e ? "[Investigator (Trial record, F r e i n e ] : That pp. 578-79.) appears that counsel and Williams Therefore, In t o Ray's exculpatory of this Kelley quoting issue, i n Ray's r a i s e an i s s u e petition Suttle i n Harville's c l a i m was a l s o d u e t o b e d e n i e d not raised cannot implicated other beginning App. this B a s e d on t h e above t e s t i m o n y i t h a d k n o w l e d g e o f s t a t e m e n t s made b y M u s e regard furnish were that i s correct." which was v. S t a t e , claims that evidence, we n o t e that not raised failed i s listed these amended p e t i t i o n . on a p p e a l on i t s m e r i t s . the State which murder. at the specific "'An claims appellant from the d e n i a l o f a Rule i n the Rule 32 to 32 petition.'" 985 S o . 2 d 9 7 2 , 976 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) , Arrington v. S t a t e , 716 So. 2 d 2 3 7 , 239 (Ala. Crim. 1997). III. Ray next argues assistance of counsel murder that he was denied the effective d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y phase o f h i s trial. 16 capital- CR-06-2143 To prevail counsel the on a claim petitioner must p e r f o r m a n c e was d e f i c i e n t ; the ineffective show: a n d (2) t h a t d e f i c i e n t performance. U.S. 668 of (1) assistance that of counsel's h e was p r e j u d i c e d by S e e S t r i c k l a n d v . W a s h i n g t o n , 466 (1984). "Judicial s c r u t i n y of counsel's performance 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 t o o t e m p t i n g for a defendant to second-guess counsel's assistance a f t e r c o n v i c t i o n o r adverse sentence, and i t i s a l l too easy f o r a c o u r t , examining counsel's defense a f t e r i t has proved u n s u c c e s s f u l , t o conclude t h a t a particular a c t 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. 1 0 7 , 1 3 3 ¬ 34 (1982). A fair assessment of attorney p e r f o r m a n c e r e q u i r e s t h a t e v e r y e f f o r t b e made t o eliminate the d i s t o r t i n g effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel's c h a l l e n g e d conduct, and t o e v a l u a t e t h e conduct from counsel's p e r s p e c t i v e a t the time. Because of the d i f f i c u l t i e s inherent i n making the e v a l u a t i o n , a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct f a l l s w i t h i n t h e wide range o f reasonable professional assistance; that i s ,the d e f e n d a n t must overcome t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t , u n d e r the c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e c h a l l e n g e d a c t i o n 'might be considered sound t r i a l strategy.' See M i c h e l v . Louisiana, [ 3 5 0 U.S. 9 1 ] , a t 101 [ ( 1 9 5 5 ) ] . There a r e c o u n t l e s s ways t o p r o v i d e e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e i n any g i v e n case. Even t h e best c r i m i n a l defense attorneys would not defend a p a r t i c u l a r c l i e n t i n t h e same w a y . " Strickland, United States 4 66 U.S. Supreme "[S]trategic investigation at 689 Court (citations further omitted). As t h e stated: choices made after thorough o f law and f a c t s r e l e v a n t t o p l a u s i b l e 17 CR-06-2143 o p t i o n s a r e v i r t u a l l y u n c h a l l e n g e a b l e ; and s t r a t e g i c c h o i c e s made a f t e r l e s s t h a n c o m p l e t e investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation. In other words, c o u n s e l h a s a d u t y t o make r e a s o n a b l e investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. In any ineffectiveness case, a p a r t i c u l a r d e c i s i o n not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness i n a l l the c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a p p l y i n g a heavy measure of d e f e r e n c e to c o u n s e l ' s j u d g m e n t s . " Strickland, In 1999), 466 Jones we U.S. v. at State, 690-91. 753 So. 2d 1174 (Ala. Crim. stated: "While c o u n s e l has a duty to investigate i n an attempt to locate evidence favorable to the defendant, 'this duty only r e q u i r e s a reasonable investigation.' S i n g l e t o n v . T h i g p e n , 847 F . 2 d 668, 669 ( 1 1 t h C i r . ( A l a . ) 1 9 8 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 488 U.S. 1019, 109 S.Ct. 822, 102 L.Ed.2d 812 (1989) (emphasis added). See 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 691, 104 S.Ct. [2052] a t 2066 [ ( 1 9 8 4 ) ] ; M o r r i s o n v . S t a t e , 551 S o . 2 d 435 ( A l a . C r . App. 1989), c e r t . d e n i e d , 495 U.S. 911, 110 S.Ct. 1938, 109 L . E d . 2 d 301 (1990). Counsel's obligation is to conduct a 'substantial i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o each of the p l a u s i b l e l i n e s of defense.' S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S. a t 6 8 1 , 104 S . C t . a t 2061 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . 'A s u b s t a n t i a l investigation i s j u s t what t h e t e r m i m p l i e s ; i t does n o t demand that counsel d i s c o v e r every shred of evidence but that a reasonable inquiry into a l l plausible d e f e n s e s be made.' I d . , 466 U.S. a t 6 8 6 , 104 S.Ct. a t 2063. "'The may reasonableness of counsel's a c t i o n s be determined or substantially 18 App. CR-06-2143 influenced by the defendant's own statements or a c t i o n s . Counsel's a c t i o n s are usually based, quite properly, on informed strategic c h o i c e s made b y the d e f e n d a n t a n d on i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p l i e d b y the defendant. In particular, what investigation decisions are reasonable d e p e n d s c r i t i c a l l y on s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n . ' "Id., 753 So. 466 U.S. at 1191. 2d at 691, 104 S.Ct. at 2066." "The purpose of i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s review i s not to grade counsel's performance. See Strickland [v. Washington], [ 4 6 6 U.S. 668,] 104 S.Ct. [2052] a t 2065 [ ( 1 9 8 4 ) ] ; see a l s o W h i t e v. S i n g l e t a r y , 97 2 F.2d 1218, 1221 (11th C i r . 1992)('We are not i n t e r e s t e d i n g r a d i n g l a w y e r s ' p e r f o r m a n c e s ; we a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n whether the a d v e r s a r i a l process at t r i a l , i n f a c t , w o r k e d a d e q u a t e l y . ' ) . We r e c o g n i z e that ' [ r ] e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s an a r t , a n d an a c t o r o m i s s i o n t h a t i s u n p r o f e s s i o n a l i n one c a s e may be s o u n d o r e v e n b r i l l i a n t i n a n o t h e r . ' S t r i c k l a n d , 104 S.Ct. a t 2067. D i f f e r e n t lawyers have different g i f t s ; t h i s f a c t , a s w e l l as d i f f e r i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s f r o m c a s e t o c a s e , means t h e r a n g e o f w h a t m i g h t be a reasonable approach a t t r i a l m u s t be b r o a d . To s t a t e the obvious: the t r i a l lawyers, i n every case, could have done something more or something d i f f e r e n t . So, o m i s s i o n s a r e i n e v i t a b l e . B u t , the i s s u e i s n o t w h a t i s p o s s i b l e o r 'what i s p r u d e n t o r appropriate, but only what is constitutionally compelled.' B u r g e r v . Kemp, 483 U.S. 7 7 6 , 107 S.Ct. 3 1 1 4 , 3 1 2 6 , 97 L . E d . 2 d 638 (1987).'" Chandler 2000) v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1313 (11th C i r . (footnote omitted). "'When t h e ineffective assistance claim relates to the s e n t e n c i n g phase of the 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 19 CR-06-2143 reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y that, absent the errors, the sentencer -including an appellate court, to the extent i t independently reweighs the evidence -¬ would have c o n c l u d e d t h a t the b a l a n c e of 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." Strickland [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 [ (1984) ] . ' "Stafford 1994). v. Saffle, 34 F.3d 1557, 1564 (10th C i r . "'"A defense attorney is not required to investigate a l l l e a d s , h o w e v e r , a n d ' 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 criminal defendant's troubled childhood must always 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 . 3 d [1547 ,] a t 1557 [(11th Cir. 1994)] (footnote omitted) ( q u o t i n g D e v i e r v. Z a n t , 3 F.3d 1445, 1453 (11th Cir. 1993), c e r t . d e n i e d , [ 5 1 3 ] U.S. [1161], 115 S . C t . 1 1 2 5 , 130 L . E d . 2 d 1087 (1995)). " I n d e e d , ' [ c ] o u n s e l has no absolute duty to present m i t i g a t i n g c h a r a c t e r evidence at a l l , and t r i a l c o u n s e l ' s f a i l u r e to present m i t i g a t i n g evidence i s n o t p e r se 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 . ' " B o l e n d e r , 16 F.3d a t 1557 (citations omitted).' "Marek v. 1995). Singletary, 62 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th C i r . "Last, the United States Supreme Court in W i g g i n s v . S m i t h , 539 U.S. 5 1 0 , 123 S . C t . 2 5 2 7 , 156 L . E d . 2 d 471 ( 2 0 0 3 ) , r e v i e w i n g a c l a i m o f i n e f f e c t i v e 20 CR-06-2143 a s s i s t a n c e of capital trial, counsel stated: at the penalty phase of a "'In Strickland [ v . W a s h i n g t o n , 4 66 U.S. 668 (1984)], we made clear 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 m u s t show that there i s a reasonable probability that, but for 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 undermine c o n f i d e n c e i n the 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 reweigh the evidence in aggravation against 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 Gaddy v. U.S. at State, 534, 952 123 So. S.Ct. 2d 2527." 114 9, 1170-71 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006). Ray Juliana was represented Taylor. postconviction Ray for at first failing the that counsel William attorneys asserts that his t r i a l he phase Whatley testified argues that counsel should counsel to present of investigation that by and at the evidentiary hearing. penalty thorough history, Both trial t o i n v e s t i g a t e and Specifically, more at his have s h o u l d have p r e s e n t e d 21 ineffective m i t i g a t i o n evidence capital-murder counsel into was should his have background contacted testimony trial. conducted and Ray's a family brother, concerning Ray's CR-06-2143 social development, that testimony should concerning have counsel Ray's presented should mental have p r e s e n t e d illness, and of Ray's evidence that expert counsel borderline intelligence. Whatley since testified 1984, t h a t specializing represent after the 1998. with R a y he the p o s s e s s i o n Ray in homicide case. 3 a two he a attorney of a general practice he said had Whatley requested said, he had was that said appointed he was case Whatley capital-murder that further was tried testified to five that in he were i n represented involving months were him that He a l s o he and Before of Taylor. case not the assist the records to appointed conflict that the help obtained a of Ray's former a t t o r n e y s . second -- licensed that He 2 attorneys withdraw. Ray, and a a p p o i n t e d t o t h e c a s e a n d t h a t he was first representing been his practice consisted i n October attorney met had law, Ray to he in criminal first allowed that a double before d i d not this request "When courts are examining the performance of an experienced t r i a l counsel, the presumption that h i s conduct was r e a s o n a b l e i s e v e n s t r o n g e r . " C h a n d l e r v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 218 F . 3 d 1 3 0 5 , 1 3 1 6 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) . 2 Ray appealed h i s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s f o r c a p i t a l murder t o t h i s Court. We a f f i r m e d t h o s e c o n v i c t i o n s b y u n p u b l i s h e d memorandum o p i n i o n . S e e R a y v . S t a t e , (No. CR- 9 8 - 1 7 2 0 , A p r i l 3 22 CR-06-2143 funds had f o r an gotten investigator and information. gather approval because, had And hired I had that this investigator find, that this was t h a t t h e y had with Dr. Kathy pretrial Medical provided t o me." Ronan, forensic Facility, i t and e v a l u a t i o n of and Ray's pursuing a mental-health interest or beneficial mother, defense to investigator i n the had at Taylor i t was case. to talking Hardin the Secure opinion that i n Ray's be (R. was conducted his not former material Also, after who help his i t was would Ray's by to a l l there 381.) Ray counsel found that doctor "former informed had (R. the said, an been attorneys and he best 382.) Whatley testified: " [ R a y ] was i n t e l l i g e n t , coherent. He was able to c o m m u n i c a t e f u l l y w i t h my c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h him. We h a d e x c h a n g e s b a c k a n d f o r t h . We t a l k e d a b o u t the case. We t a l k e d about h i s l i f e . We talked about h i s f a m i l y . I h a d no i n d i c a t i o n f r o m h i m o r f r o m h i s f a m i l y t h a t t h e r e was a n y t h i n g more t o s u p p o r t t h e s e few l i n e s i n t h i s r e p o r t t h a n w h a t I f e a r e d t o be m a l i n g e r i n g . " (R. 413.) Ray about and Ray's information." 21, 2000) 810 his mother, brother He So. and said: 2d 805 Whatley did said, not give " I b e l i e v e we (Ala. Crim. 23 were not Whatley were App. told 2000) forthcoming "a he lot was (table). of not CR-06-2143 available and not around and not i n t h e p i c t u r e and had n o t been a p a r t o f Dominique's l i f e the time t h a t R a y was t r i e d , common o c c u r r e n c e In regard Whatley this testified that to assist in never engaged 394.) At i t was n o t a to o b t a i n i n g the assistance of a m i t i g a t i o n expert, experts (R. Whatley t e s t i f i e d , (R. 4 1 8 . ) to obtain the assistance of a psychologist. i t was s e c t i o n of the state fact f o r some t i m e . " counsel "not the standard to retain i n capital one u n t i l Whatley f u r t h e r and u t i l i z e murder some p o i n t cases. after practice i n mitigation And I had the trial." testified: "Without recalling any specifics as to i n d i v i d u a l s , a t some p o i n t we w e r e g i v e n some n a m e s , e i t h e r from M r s . Ray o r from Dominique t o c o n t a c t . Now some o f t h e s e names w e r e i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e guilty phase. Some of these names were in connection with the mitigation. And our attempts t o t a l k with these i n d i v i d u a l s were n o t s u c c e s s f u l . T h a t w o u l d be a f a i r l y good c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t h a t . I can r e c a l l going t o t a l k w i t h people, going to a house, knocking on t h e d o o r a n d g e t t i n g no a n s w e r . A n d a t o n e p o i n t we w e n t t o an a r e a , a n d we may h a v e h a d R o y F r e i n e go w i t h u s t o e n t e r a n a r e a t h a t we p r o b a b l y d i d n ' t n e c e s s a r i l y n e e d t o go i n t o on o u r own. A n d s o I c a n r e c a l l t h a t . I c a n r e c a l l m a k i n g p h o n e c a l l s w h o s e names a n d p h o n e n u m b e r s I h a d b e e n g i v e n . I d o n ' t know who. I r e m e m b e r h a v i n g a c o n v e r s a t i o n where I called an i n d i v i d u a l who worked a t a r e n t a l c e n t e r here i n town. And I t o l d h i m who I was a n d I n e e d e d t o t a l k t o h i m , p o s s i b l y u s e h i m a s a w i t n e s s f o r D o m i n i q u e . A n d I was t o l d , n o , y o u d o n ' t w a n t me t o do t h a t . I s a i d , n o , I d o . He s a i d , n o , I'm n o t c o m i n g . A n d i f I come, y o u d o n ' t w a n t t o h e a r w h a t I h a v e g o t t o s a y . I mean 24 CR-06-2143 t h a t ' s j u s t t h e one mean I h a v e d o n e a w i t n e s s come o u t a n d d o n ' t w a n t me a n d i f t o t e s t i f y , you a r e k i n d of s t a n d s out." (R. 385.) W h a t l e y s a i d t h a t he Ray's c h i l d , b e c a u s e , he with her was Also, he to told t h a t s t a n d s o u t i n my m i n d . I l o t of cases. But to have a be t h a t b l u n t t o s a y , n o , you y o u do make me come down t h e r e not g o i n g t o l i k e what I say and Attorney s a i d , Ray speak to the mother i n s t r u c t e d him adamant about W h a t l e y ' s said, other them t h a t d i d not i n d i v i d u a l s whom he their Taylor testimony testified to to not and cocounsel speak contacting w o u l d be the not harmful following to her. spoke Ray. concerning their investigation: "We t a l k e d t o b o t h D o m i n i q u e and t o h i s mom a b o u t t h e k i n d o f t h i n g t h a t we n e e d e d b a s i c a l l y trying to explain number one, of course, how i m p o r t a n t t h i s was; number two, t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f w h a t c o u l d h a p p e n . A n d n u m b e r t h r e e , y o u k n o w , we w e r e l o o k i n g f o r a n y b o d y t o h e l p p u t a human f a c e on D o m i n i q u e , you know, n o t t o see him as somebody t h a t t h e y c o u l d r e c o m m e n d t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y f o r . So we t a l k e d t o them a b o u t , you know, i s t h e r e a n y b o d y , n e i g h b o r s t h a t you h e l p e d w i t h t h e i r g r o c e r i e s , c u t t h e i r g r a s s , you know, l i t t l e o l d l a d i e s you helped across the s t r e e t , I mean a n y t h i n g that could, anybody t h a t c o u l d say n i c e t h i n g s about you, you know, t o b r i n g i n t o c o u r t h u m a n i t y and this is s o m e b o d y who h a d a p o s i t i v e [ e f f e c t ] on my l i f e . We were g i v e n a f a i r l y s h o r t l i s t . Then the contacts were f a i r l y n e g a t i v e . A l o t of p e o p l e d i d not want t o h e l p . A l o t o f p e o p l e t o l d me t h e y d i d n o t h a v e anything p o s i t i v e to say. The people who were w i l l i n g t o come a n d s a y s o m e t h i n g p o s i t i v e came a n d s a i d s o m e t h i n g p o s i t i v e . I d o n ' t r e c a l l who that 25 of CR-06-2143 was, you know, s p e c i f i c a l l y . I s h i p p e d my f i l e o f f t o y ' a l l s o l o n g a g o I d o n ' t h a v e a n y o f my n o t e s o r a n y t h i n g t o r e f r e s h my memory o t h e r t h a n w h a t y ' a l l h a v e p r o v i d e d me. B u t t h a t was b a s i c a l l y t h e c o n t e x t of the investigation as f a r as mitigation was c o n c e r n e d . G i v e me anybody. I ' l lt r y to contact t h e m . When I c o n t a c t t h e m , I'm g o i n g t o a s k t h e m t o m u s h r o o m o u t ; i s t h e r e a n y b o d y e l s e t h a t c a n t e l l me s o m e t h i n g good. And then those people who were w i l l i n g t o come. " B a s e d on t h e M a b i n s c o n v i c t i o n [ ] we a l r e a d y had some i d e a o f who t o t a l k t o . One o f t h e p e o p l e who testified a t the H a r v i l l e m i t i g a t i o n had already t e s t i f i e d a t t h e M a b i n s m i t i g a t i o n p a r t , a nun. I d o n ' t r e c a l l h e r name. So some o f t h e w o r k h a d b e e n a l r e a d y -- t h e f o u n d a t i o n h a d a l r e a d y b e e n l a i d . " 4 (R. 447-49.) "Although should have lawyer did 1305, 1320 petitioner's done in something fact." claim i s that more, we Chandler v. first United his trial look at States, counsel what 218 the F.3d (11th C i r . 2000). "[W]e m u s t a l s o c o n s i d e r t h e r e a s o n s a d v a n c e d a t t h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g a s t o why r e s e n t e n c i n g counsel d i d not i n v e s t i g a t e and p r e s e n t a v a i l a b l e m i t i g a t i n g evidence at the p e n a l t y phase. In e v a l u a t i n g the c o m p e t e n c e o f c o u n s e l , we m u s t e x a m i n e t h e a c t u a l p e r f o r m a n c e o f c o u n s e l i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r and d u r i n g the penalty phase proceedings, as w e l l as the reasons advanced t h e r e f o r . " This i s the double-homicide e a r l i e r i n t h i s o p i n i o n and i n n o t e 4 26 conviction 3. referred to CR-06-2143 R o s e v. State, The record pleaded Ray's 675 not So. of guilty first 2d 567, Ray's by attorney 572 trial reason moved the offense, moved neuropsychologist, for investigator. Ray "willfully refused to the State outpatient without that appointment for was uncooperative c o u r t and that the withdraw and at this of a funds cooperate." The a sentence T a y l o r were a p p o i n t e d with of 1998 of time clinical to hire he hearing an said, on o f f e r e d Ray the a plea capital-murder life imprisonment T h i s h e a r i n g f u r t h e r shows both his attorneys court allowed his f i r s t September defect. moved t o w i t h d r a w a f t e r , the p o s s i b i l i t y of p a r o l e . Ray trial recommend or evaluation i n exchange f o r h i s g u i l t y p l e a to would originally disease m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w shows t h a t t h e S t a t e had a g r e e m e n t -- Ray and h i s competency a t t h e moved Counsel then that mental an for and shows of Ray's competency t o s t a n d t r i a l of ( F l a . 1996). hearing. immediately and attorneys Attorneys t h e r e a f t e r to the to Whatley represent Ray. Also, presented at the the penalty testimony of phase before Ray's mother, 27 the jury, Gladys Ray. counsel She CR-06-2143 testified that a t the time of t r i a l R a y was 23 y e a r s o l d . She said: "He d i d n ' t h a v e a n e a s y c h i l d h o o d . I was a d i v o r c e d m o t h e r t h a t was r a i s i n g h i m . He h a d a f a t h e r t h a t d i s o w n e d h i m . So I t r i e d t o d o t h e b e s t I c a n w i t h him. And Dominique because o f h i s f a i t h and he's a born again C h r i s t i a n . I t ' s easy f o r him t o f o l l o w p e o p l e and t h i n k i n g t h e y were h i s f r i e n d s . He t r i e d t o be n i c e t o p e o p l e . He's e a s y g o i n g . Ever since he was f o u r t e e n h e d i d b e l i e v e i n h o l d i n g a j o b . I made s u r e o f t h a t b e c a u s e I t o l d h i m i n o r d e r t o make i t i n l i f e , y o u ' v e g o t t o w o r k f o r i t . " (R. 742.) Ray's mother further testified that she her h u s b a n d a n d R a y ' s f a t h e r b e c a u s e h e was h a v i n g a n divorced affair, t h a t R a y ' s f a t h e r d i s o w n e d h i m a n d s a i d t h a t he w i s h e d R a y h a d never been born, violent, turned their home l i f e was Ray w i t n e s s e d h i s f a t h e r b e a t i n g that that before the divorce her, that she h e r b a c k o n R a y w h e n h e came t o h e r f o r h e l p , had a difficult time him, and t h a t time of h i s t r i a l . accepting that Ray has a c h i l d for Ray by t a k i n g Job She a l s o who h i s father was testified o l d at the she sought at t h e time upbringing counsel a r g u e d t h a t R a y was o n l y o f t h e murder were and e n r o l l i n g help Corps. In c l o s i n g , him out of school d i d n o t want two y e a r s that t h a t Ray mitigating and t h a t his violent circumstances 28 that him i n the 19 y e a r s o l d and chaotic supported a CR-06-2143 sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. During counsel the presented members. should be The the hearing testimony Seven of those e i g h t sentenced possibility that sentencing of to of eight capital-murder homicide trial, t e s t i m o n y of Ray's mother at the in that recommended the penalty p h a s e i n t h a t c a s e was the greatest State that Ray presented had offense. he was possibility a without The the of parole an confident been that Ray be that of by very of a that without Ray the the was vote why to i n the of a the jury jury - 5. one The in this present case circumstance capital-murder in this that case death. Ray's b r o t h e r ; 29 7 evidentiary hearing evidentiary hearing, E u r o p e Ray, The imprisonment of aggravating convicted at life shows presented phase. s i m i l a r to the i s that sentenced postconviction testimony family conviction penalty additional Whatley t e s t i f i e d the court, and Whatley also sentence distinction previously recommended t h a t At friends imprisonment the case. trial parole. Mabinses' case the individuals testified life r e c o r d of Ray's f i r s t i n the before Ray presented Regina Marshall, CR-06-2143 Ray's cousin; Catherine Dr. Janet Vogelsang, a clinical L. B o y e r , a c l i n i c a l Charles Golden, a testified professor by v i d e o t a p e d Europe Ray t e s t i f i e d worker; Dr. and f o r e n s i c p s y c h o l o g i s t ; at U n i v e r s i t y and a neuropsychologist. also social Nova and Southeastern Vera M u l l i n s , a r e l a t i v e , deposition. t h a t he i s one y e a r o l d e r than Ray, t h a t when t h e y w e r e g r o w i n g up t h e i r p a r e n t s s e p a r a t e d when he was a b o u t that, five after years old, h i s parents mother went t o C h i c a g o , his mother's were t a k e n obtained separated 19 and and h i s brother were removed she c o n t a c t e d life that their them t o B u f f a l o , was unstable New they aunt father York. and t h e i r their children. he moved t o I n d i a n a p o l i s trial, several he wanted said, t o change his life. he h a d h a d no years. 30 contact father He t e s t i f i e d that father d i d not Europe further i n 1 9 9 4 , w h e n h e was y e a r s o l d , b e c a u s e h i s f a t h e r was l i v i n g Europe from them, t h a t and t h a t other and i n 1980 a f t e r t h e i r and t h a t want them b e c a u s e he h a d f i v e testified he was an a l c o h o l i c , he a n d h i s b r o t h e r i n by h i s aunt, custody home h i s father c u s t o d y b a s e d on h e r n e g l e c t i n g came a n d t o o k their that there a t the time A t the time with o f Ray's h i s brother f o r CR-06-2143 Regina Marshall friend and various that Gladys had that been she was Gladys Ray's abused numerous best times by boyfriends. Janet Vogelsang "biopsychosocial various testified risk conclusion, assessment factors she testified that that of she Ray." were had She present completed testified in Ray's to a the life. In testified: " I w o u l d c o n c l u d e t h e two most i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r s t h a t I have found a l o n g w i t h t h i s a c c u m u l a t i o n i f that the exposure to violence and neglect even a c c o r d i n g to the U n i t e d States Department of J u s t i c e researchers are the two most t e l l i n g factors in p l a c i n g y o u n g p e o p l e a t r i s k t o e n d up committing very serious acts. And certainly violence and neglect were p r e s e n t in this home a n d in his e n v i r o n m e n t and i n h i s upbringing." (R. 199.) Dr. Boyer personality isolation, beliefs," was disorder, odd and brain that a thinking Ray condition and those development interpersonal from "schizotypal characterized and by social unconventional e x a m i n a t i o n of Ray's r e c o r d symptoms a t Golden t e s t i f i e d suffers behavior, t h a t b a s e d on h e r experiencing Dr. with testified time of the murder. had evidence of Ray to suffer severe relationships and self control." that t h a t Ray the causes 31 he "anomalous problems Dr. CR-06-2143 Golden said, further testified places that him i n the l e v e l Vera M u l l i n s t e s t i f i e d husband's great her nephew. c h i l d r e n were after she testified after had that she R a y h a s a n IQ o f 8 0 , w h i c h , functioning. i n h e r d e p o s i t i o n t h a t R a y was h e r She s a i d t h a t small, been of low mental she v i s i t e d beaten up on one o c c a s i o n , Gladys by a released from boyfriend. "roamed t h e s t r e e t s " w h i l e the hospital M u l l i n s took care children had been Catholics Charities. To r e b u t the testimony and that of scale and mental i l l n e s s now. tests I Q was 8 0 . retarded Dr. Dr. Glen King on King, Ray Ray "was need a of her children. learned mother's that care and the State clinical testified that determined by and he that from forensic performed Ray's any full- mentally serious a t the time of the offense" or f o r neuropsychological 32 presented t h a t Ray i s n o t not s u f f e r i n g or mental defect no their evidence, I t was h i s o p i n i o n that T h e r e was from Gladys G l a d y s , s h e s a i d , was n o t a g o o d m o t h e r . the mental-health psychologist. intelligence removed Mullins her children They moved o u t o f M u l l i n s ' s h o u s e , a n d she l a t e r the when i n the hospital G l a d y s moved i n t o h e r h o u s e w i t h was he testing, he CR-06-2143 said, because injury, Ray had no history of any "head [or] n e u r o l o g i c a l d i s e a s e " problems. trauma, (R. head 498.) "The t e s t f o r i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s i s not whether counsel c o u l d have done more; p e r f e c t i o n i s n o t r e q u i r e d . E . g . , A t k i n s v . S i n g l e t a r y , 965 F . 2 d 952, 960 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1992) ( ' T r i a l c o u n s e l d i d enough. A l a w y e r c a n a l m o s t a l w a y s do s o m e t h i n g m o r e i n e v e r y case. But the C o n s t i t u t i o n r e q u i r e s a good d e a l l e s s than maximum p e r f o r m a n c e . ' ) . Nor i s the test whether the best c r i m i n a l defense attorneys might h a v e d o n e m o r e . I n s t e a d , t h e t e s t i s w h e t h e r some reasonable attorney could have acted, in the circumstances, as t h e s e two d i d whether what t h e y d i d was w i t h i n t h e ' w i d e r a n g e o f reasonable p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e , ' S t r i c k l a n d v. W a s h i n g t o n , 466 U.S. 6 6 8 , 6 8 9 , 104 S . C t . 2 0 5 2 , 2 0 6 5 , 80 L . E d . 2 d 674 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ; W h i t e v . S i n g l e t a r y , 972 F . 2 d 1 2 1 8 , 1220 (11th C i r . 1992)." W a t e r s v. Ray Thomas, relies i n W i g g i n s v. that on 46 539 U.S. 1518 510 investigation s a y s , t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n was Association 1506, (11th C i r . 1995). t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t ' s Smith, counsel's F.3d (2003), was to support unreasonable his claim because, he i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the American Bar ("ABA") G u i d e l i n e s t h a t g o v e r n investigating decision for a capital-murder case. 5 the We standards have h e l d for that T h e ABA G u i d e l i n e s w e r e r e v i s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n 2 0 0 3 -¬ a f t e r Ray was t r i e d and c o n v i c t e d . "After Wiggins these G u i d e l i n e s h a v e b e e n r e v i s e d t o be e v e n m o r e e x a c t i n g i n s o f a r a s t h e y r e q u i r e c o u n s e l ' t o s e e k i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t ... rebuts t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s c a s e i n a g g r a v a t i o n , ' ... a n d t o 'determine a t the e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e time what a g g r a v a t i n g f a c t o r s the p r o s e c u t i o n w i l l r e l y upon i n s e e k i n g t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y and 5 33 CR-06-2143 the ABA Guidelines reasonable are (Ala. not i n terms "provide of counsel's determinative." J o n e s v. C r i m . App. The may danger determinative d i s c u s s e d by on guidance as to what is representation, [but] they State, 1258, 1278 43 So. 3d 2007). of the adopting issue of the a ABA lawyer's Guidelines effectiveness the U n i t e d States Court of Appeals f o r the as was Fourth Circuit: "[T]o hold defense counsel responsible for p e r f o r m i n g e v e r y t a s k t h a t t h e ABA G u i d e l i n e s s a y he 'should' do i s t o impose p r e c i s e l y the 'set of detailed rules for counsel's conduct' that the Supreme C o u r t has long since r e j e c t e d as being unable to 'satisfactorily take account of the v a r i e t y of c i r c u m s t a n c e s f a c e d by d e f e n s e c o u n s e l or t h e r a n g e o f l e g i t i m a t e d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g how best to r e p r e s e n t a c r i m i n a l defendant.' S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S. a t 6 8 8 - 8 9 , 104 S . C t . 2 0 5 2 . Such a c a t e g o r i c a l h o l d i n g w o u l d l e a d t o n e e d l e s s and e x p e n s i v e layers of process with the unintended effect of compromising process. ...Recognition of the ABA Guidelines as the minimum prevailing community standard would t r a n s f o r m defense lawyers' judgments into mindless defensive reactions to a p o t e n t i a l habeas c l a i m , d i v o r c e d from the i n d i v i d u a l i z e d needs of p r o f e s s i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . Those needs call f o r more n u a n c e d r e s p o n s e s t h a n c a n be p r o v i d e d by w h a t e v i d e n c e w i l l be o f f e r e d i n s u p p o r t t h e r e o f . ' " United S t a t e s v . K a r a k e , 370 F. S u p p . 2 d 2 7 5 , 278 (D.C. 2 0 0 5 ) . "[W]e r e c o g n i z e t h a t we m u s t m e a s u r e c o u n s e l ' s p e r f o r m a n c e i n t h i s case a g a i n s t the p r e v a i l i n g s t a n d a r d s a t the time of [Ray's] trial." H a m b l i n v . M i t c h e l l , 354 F . 3 d 4 8 2 , 4 8 7 - 8 8 ( 6 t h C i r . 2003). 34 CR-06-2143 following preestablished representation mechanical rules of "While t h e ABA Guidelines provide noble standards f o r l e g a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n c a p i t a l cases and are intended t o improve t h a t representation, t h e y n e v e r t h e l e s s c a n o n l y be c o n s i d e r e d as p a r t o f the overall calculus of whether counsel's r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f a l l s b e l o w an o b j e c t i v e s t a n d a r d o f reasonableness; they s t i l l serve o n l y as 'guides,' Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, not minimum constitutional standards." Yarbrough v. Johnson, also Torres 2005) from v. S t a t e , ("W]e ineffective 120 P . 3 d 1 1 8 4 , 1 1 8 9 will not find simply because current differences 520 F . 3 d 3 2 9 , 3 3 9 ( 4 t h C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) . capital that counsel's practice are significant. counsel Crim. App. was representation customs, even A d e f e n d a n t must s t i l l h e was p r e j u d i c e d by counsel's with States the United capital (Okla. Court Appeals p e r se differed where the show that representation."). of See We f o r the agree Fourth Circuit. Also, the United States Supreme C o u r t i n W i g g i n s stated: "[C]ounsel has a duty to make reasonable i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o r t o make a r e a s o n a b l e d e c i s i o n t h a t makes p a r t i c u l a r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s u n n e c e s s a r y [A] particular decision n o t t o i n v e s t i g a t e must be directly assessed f o r reasonableness i n a l l the c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a p p l y i n g a heavy measure o f d e f e r e n c e to counsel's judgments. 35 CR-06-2143 "... [ O ] u r p r i n c i p a l c o n c e r n i n d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r [counsel] exercised 'reasonable professional judgmen[t]' i s not whether counsel should have p r e s e n t e d a m i t i g a t i o n c a s e . R a t h e r , we focus on whether the investigation supporting counsel's d e c i s i o n not to i n t r o d u c e m i t i g a t i n g evidence ... was itself reasonable. In assessing counsel's i n v e s t i g a t i o n , we m u s t c o n d u c t an o b j e c t i v e r e v i e w of t h e i r performance, measured f o r 'reasonableness under p r e v a i l i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l norms,' which i n c l u d e s a context-dependent c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the c h a l l e n g e d c o n d u c t as s e e n 'from c o u n s e l ' s p e r s p e c t i v e a t t h e time.'" 539 U.S. at 521-23. Contrary to the this for Court, the Wiggins Beard, 545 to U.S. Wiggins, 539 362, S.Ct. 120 of ineffective a s s i s t a n c e of counsel. Supreme Court n. clearly holds at 539 is making counsel either 'new S.Ct. 123 merely not 491 not 125 510, 478, to standard 1495, do in his brief a n n o u n c e a new 374, U.S. S t r i c k l a n d and F.3d the Court Ray d i d not evaluating claims "Subsequent 538 argument advanced by 2456, S.Ct. 162 e x p l a i n e d the Jells "The Court at 521, law' on the ineffective case on w h i c h 36 S.Ct. v. at v. (2005), s t a n d a r d s e t out U.S. i n the e a r l i e r 123 Rompilla W i l l i a m s , 529 law." (6th C i r . 2008). in L . E d . 2 d 360 2527, and e s t a b l i s h new 2 decisions U.S. in Mitchell, in Wiggins 2535, that i t assistance i t relied of for i t s CR-06-2143 s t a n d a r d s , W i l l i a m s v . T a y l o r , 5 2 9 U.S. 362 v. Mitchell, 354 F . 3 d 4 8 2 , 487 (6thC i r . (2000)." Hamblin 2003). "'[F]ailure to investigate possible mitigating f a c t o r s and f a i l u r e t o present m i t i g a t i n g evidence at sentencing can c o n s t i t u t e i n e f f e c t i v e assistance o f c o u n s e l u n d e r t h e S i x t h Amendment.' C o l e m a n [ v . M i t c h e l l , 244 F . 3 d [ 5 3 3 ] a t 5 4 5 [ ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) ] ; s e e a l s o R o m p i l l a v . B e a r d , 5 4 5 U.S. 3 7 4 , 1 2 5 S . C t . 2 4 5 6 , 162 L . E d . 2 d 3 6 0 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ; W i g g i n s v . S m i t h , 5 3 9 U.S. 5 1 0 , 1 2 3 S . C t . 2 5 2 7 , 1 5 6 L . E d . 2 d 4 7 1 ( 2 0 0 3 ) . Our c i r c u i t ' s precedent has d i s t i n g u i s h e d between counsel's complete f a i l u r e t o conduct a m i t i g a t i o n i n v e s t i g a t i o n , w h e r e we a r e l i k e l y t o f i n d d e f i c i e n t performance, and counsel's f a i l u r e t o conduct an adequate i n v e s t i g a t i o n , where t h e p r e s u m p t i o n of reasonable performance i s more difficult to overcome: "'[T]he cases where t h i s c o u r t has g r a n t e d the writ for failure of counsel to investigate potential mitigating evidence have been l i m i t e d t o those s i t u a t i o n s i n which defense c o u n s e l have t o t a l l y f a i l e d to conduct such an investigation. In contrast, i f a habeas claim does n o t involve a failure to investigate but, rather, petitioner's d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the degree of h i s a t t o r n e y ' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the presumption o f reasonableness imposed by S t r i c k l a n d w i l l be h a r d t o overcome. " C a m p b e l l v . C o y l e , 260 F . 3 d 5 3 1 , 5 5 2 ( 6 t h C i r . 2001) ( q u o t a t i o n omitted) (emphasis added); see a l s o M o o r e v . P a r k e r , 425 F . 3 d 2 5 0 , 255 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . In the present case, defense counsel d i d not completely fail t o conduct an i n v e s t i g a t i o n f o r mitigating evidence. Counsel spoke w i t h Beuke's parents p r i o r t o p e n a l t y phase o f t r i a l (although t h e r e i s some q u e s t i o n a s t o how much t i m e c o u n s e l spent p r e p a r i n g Beuke's p a r e n t s t o t e s t i f y ) , and presented h i s parents' testimony at the sentencing 37 CR-06-2143 h e a r i n g . Defense counsel also asked the p r o b a t i o n department to conduct a presentence investigation and a psychiatric evaluation. While these investigatory efforts fall far short of an e x h a u s t i v e s e a r c h , t h e y do n o t q u a l i f y a s a c o m p l e t e f a i l u r e t o i n v e s t i g a t e . See M a r t i n v . M i t c h e l l , 280 F . 3 d 5 9 4 , 613 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( f i n d i n g t h a t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l d i d not c o m p l e t e l y f a i l t o i n v e s t i g a t e where t h e r e was ' l i m i t e d c o n t a c t between defense counsel and family members,' 'counsel requested a presentence report,' and counsel 'elicited the testimony of [petitioner's] mother and grandmother'). Because Beuke's a t t o r n e y s d i d not entirely abdicate their duty to i n v e s t i g a t e for mitigating evidence, we must closely evaluate whether they e x h i b i t e d s p e c i f i c d e f i c i e n c i e s that were unreasonable under prevailing professional s t a n d a r d s . See D i c k e r s o n v . B a g l e y , 453 F . 3 d 690, 701 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) . " Beuke v. Houk, particular 537 F.3d decision not 618, to 643 (6th C i r . 2008). investigate assessed f o r reasonableness i n a l l must be directly the circumstances, a p p l y i n g heavy measure of d e f e r e n c e t o c o u n s e l ' s judgments." 539 U.S. at investigate 1547, 1557 something a good 521-22. "A defense a l l leads more i n e v e r y deal Singletary, less 965 than F.2d a t t o r n e y i s not Bolender (11th C i r . 1994). "A case. v. lawyer But maximum 952, 960 required Singletary, can almost performance." (11th decision not to investigate with benefit of hindsight, 38 Wiggins, but Cir. 16 always the C o n s t i t u t i o n attorney's the "[A] 1992). accorded F.3d do requires Atkins must n o t be to v. "The evaluated a strong CR-06-2143 presumption 886, of reasonableness." 889 ( 1 1 t h C i r . Mitchell v . Kemp, 762 F . 2 d 1985). "The reasonableness o f c o u n s e l ' s a c t i o n s may b e determined or substantially influenced by the d e f e n d a n t ' s own s t a t e m e n t s o r a c t i o n s . Counsel's actions are usually based, quite p r o p e r l y , on i n f o r m e d s t r a t e g i c c h o i c e s made b y t h e d e f e n d a n t a n d on i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p l i e d by t h e defendant. In particular, what investigation decisions are r e a s o n a b l e depends c r i t i c a l l y on s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n . " S t r i c k l a n d v . W a s h i n g t o n , 4 6 6 U.S. a t 6 9 1 . " T h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of the evidence investigation would further.'" a a reasonable the attorney v. Quarterman, quantum case, Ray's t r i a l trial i n which to of investigate 470 F . 3 d 1 0 9 6 , quoting i n part Wiggins, this previous lead S t . Aubin 2006), In 'not o n l y a l r e a d y known t o c o u n s e l , b u t a l s o w h e t h e r t h e known evidence Cir. involves 1101 (5th 5 3 9 U.S. a t 5 2 7 . c o u n s e l h a d r e p r e s e n t e d Ray i n Ray was charged with a double c a p i t a l murder a p p r o x i m a t e l y f i v e months b e f o r e t h i s t r i a l and had obtained a sentence of life imprisonment p o s s i b i l i t y of parole for that conviction. similar this case mitigation one. The e v i d e n c e involving mitigation evidence Whatley the presented i n t h a t c a p i t a l - m u r d e r case and p r e s e n t e d i n t h e p e n a l t y phase o f t h e t h e Mabins presented without i n this homicides case. 39 was similar to the A l s o , counsel had spoken CR-06-2143 numerous times determination murder and Ray of Ray's at t r i a l , possession of evaluation of with his mother, competency, had that reflected and been both that R a y was The malingering. Counsel of the had results of at the Ray's from any m e n t a l illness. also testified that Also, i s not a situation investigation o r where in of possession troubled conduct and hearing documents a more t h o r o u g h in case that counsel that showed Ray that conducted no counsel i n Wiggins, was alluded childhood but defendant's counsel introduced at the was far less m i t i g a t i o n evidence omitted i n Wiggins. t e s t i m o n y was to the failed to investigation. the evidence this where counsel, l i k e difficult Moreover, Ray's evidence based IQ i s 8 0 . This the time h i s competency o n h i s d e a l i n g s w i t h R a y h e h a d no r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e suffered that a n d i t was t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e d o c t o r who h a d e x a m i n e d R a y t o d e t e r m i n e R a y was pretrial counsel and competent both the o f f e n s e and a t the time of t r i a l that a at the time conducted information. and cumulative sentencing hearing. t o Ray's Finally, 40 postconviction compelling than the Also, a great bulk of mother's testimony the testimony at concerning CR-06-2143 Ray's mental health was disputed by the State's expert testimony. The United addressing the reviewing court against the the the Supreme C o u r t p r e j u d i c e prong must reweigh of the omitted mitigating petitioner stated States has i n Wiggins the Strickland aggravating circumstances been p r e j u d i c e d . held that Here, analysis a circumstances to determine the circuit following: 1122-23.) 41 i f court "In l i g h t of the overwhelming evidence of the three aggravating circumstances proved beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt by t h e S t a t e , i n c l u d i n g t h a t Ray had been p r e v i o u s l y c o n v i c t e d of other capital m u r d e r s , and g i v e n t h e b r u t a l n a t u r e o f t h e facts surrounding T i f f a n y H a r v i l l e ' s murder, the Court f i n d s t h a t t h e r e i s no 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 m o r e d e t a i l s a b o u t R a y ' s home l i f e w o u l d h a v e c a u s e d a d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t i n the j u r y ' s recommendation at the penalty phase of trial. See Thompson v. Wainwright, 787 F.2d 1447, 1456 (11th C i r . 1986) (holding t h a t 'there i s not a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y the jury would have changed i t s sentencing conclusion had [defense counsel] presented and a r g u e d t h e m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e now o f f e r e d ' b e c a u s e o f 'the o v e r w h e l m i n g e v i d e n c e o f [the] a g g r a v a t i n g circumstances'). T h i s C o u r t can a f f i r m a t i v e l y s t a t e that i f the evidence presented by Ray at his e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g had been p r e s e n t e d d u r i n g the p e n a l t y phase of t r i a l i t would not have changed this Court's determination t h a t the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances. Therefore, t h i s 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 counsel i s denied." (C.R. in CR-06-2143 We are confident, postconviction presented was petition, court that the that reviewed mitigating the p e n a l t y phase of Ray's c a p i t a l - m u r d e r t r i a l -- w o u l d have show that counsel on he at the was the sentence deprived in this of the evidence from impact postconviction hearing Ray's omitted no the the but had at as case. Ray effective failed to assistance of p e n a l t y phase of h i s c a p i t a l - m u r d e r trial. B. Ray further argues that g u i l t p h a s e o f h i s t r i a l was different grounds counsel's performance ineffective. i n support of this Ray raises at the numerous assertion. 1. First, assistance Taylor, Ray of argues counsel did not have that he because, five was he denied says, years of that an " m u s t be than five criminal was indigent charged years' law." law prior The to experience a for less than Whatley i n the three 42 she experience capital counsel having active r e c o r d shows t h a t a t t h e assist Juliana as This section provides with provided with court appointed appointed practice defendant effective cocounsel, legal r e q u i r e d by § 13A-5-54, A l a . Code 1975. the had years. time been offense no practice that less of Taylor licensed to CR-06-2143 This and claim i s raised appellant a Rule was f o r the cannot 32 not presented first raise petition K e l l e y v. S t a t e , App. quoting Arrington (Ala. Crim. App. 32 before this Court. on a p p e a l was petition.'" 2007), Rule time an i s s u e which i n Ray's not from raised State, been licensed practice was the Rule of 32 ( A l a . Crim. So. 2d 237, 239 1997). M o r e o v e r , when R a y ' s c o c o u n s e l , W h a t l e y , had in 716 "'An the denial 985 S o . 2 d 9 7 2 , 976 v. petition to practice devoted was a p p o i n t e d h e law f o r over 14 to criminal law. primarily years and h i s " ' I n P a r k e r v . S t a t e , 587 S o . 2 d 1 0 7 2 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) , we h e l d t h a t w h e n a p e r s o n a c c u s e d o f a c a p i t a l o f f e n s e h a s one a t t o r n e y whose e x p e r i e n c e meets t h a t r e q u i r e d i n §13A-5-54, t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h a t s e c t i o n have been s a t i s f i e d . ' Hodges v. S t a t e , 856 S o . 2 d 8 7 5 , 899 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) . " Belisle v. S t a t e , 11 S o . 3d 256, 279 ( A l a . Crim. R a y h a d t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l f o r w h i c h h e was entitled. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e r e was no v i o l a t i o n App. 2007). statutorily of § 13A-5-54. 2. Ray failing tried and further t o seek argues a motion that counsel was ineffective f o r a change o f venue after Ray and c o n v i c t e d f o r t h e c a p i t a l - m u r d e r of E a r n e s t Reinard Mabins. As we stated 43 previously, for this was Mabins trial CR-06-2143 occurred In five months b e f o r e addressing this Ray's t r i a l claim, i n the instant the c i r c u i t court case. stated: "Ray o f f e r e d no e v i d e n c e a t h i s e v i d e n t i a r y hearing affirmatively proving t h a t a n y member o f v e n i r e h a d r e a d news r e p o r t s a b o u t h i s c a s e o r t h a t a n y j u r o r knew h e h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d f o r t h e c a p i t a l murder o f t h e Mabins b r o t h e r s . The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t Ray has abandoned this claim of ineffective assistance." (C.R. 1144-45.) the record. The c i r c u i t Ray p r e s e n t e d court's no e v i d e n c e claim at the evidentiary hearing; burden of proving this claim. Moreover, Ray's o r i g i n a l of venue. f i n d i n g s are supported by Whatley t e s t i f i e d thus, i n support he f a i l e d of t o meet h i s S e e R u l e 3 2 . 3 , A l a . R. C r i m . P. attorneys d i d move f o r a c h a n g e at the evidentiary hearing he w a s s h o c k e d a t t h e l a c k o f m e d i a c o v e r a g e s u r r o u n d i n g trial f o r t h e murder o f t h e Mabins b r o t h e r s . motion this f o r a change o f venue, Whatley that Ray's In regard to a testified: " I knew I w o u l d n e v e r w i n . A n d I c o u l d b e w r o n g . I f I made a w r o n g c a l l o n t h a t , I made a w r o n g c a l l . B u t my i m p r e s s i o n w a s we w e r e n e v e r g o i n g t o g e t a change o f venue i n t h i s case, and i t d i d n ' t m a t t e r t h a t t h e M a b i n s c a s e was b e f o r e I d o know s i n c e then t h a t t h e law hasn't changed. I t hasn't gotten any e a s i e r . I f anything i t ' s gotten even harder." (R. 425.) B a s e d on t h e r e c o r d clear that counsel and Whatley's testimony, i t i s made a s t r a t e g i c d e c i s i o n n o t t o p u r s u e t h e 44 CR-06-2143 motion f o r a change Mississippi o f venue. As o u r n e i g h b o r i n g s t a t e of has h e l d : "[The appellant] contends that due t o t h e abundance of prejudicial pre-trial publicity, [counsel] s h o u l d have moved f o r change o f venue e i t h e r b e f o r e t r i a l o r d u r i n g v o i r d i r e . ... "Concerning the f i r s t prong of S t r i c k l a n d , t h i s would f a l l i n t o the realm o f t r i a l strategy, since d e f e n s e c o u n s e l i s u n d e r n o d u t y t o make s u c h a motion. M u r r a y v . C a r r i e r , 477 U.S. 478 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . The f a c t t h a t t h e r e h a s b e e n w i d e s p r e a d p u b l i c i t y i n a country about a p a r t i c u l a r crime does not n e c e s s a r i l y mean t h a t a p r u d e n t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l w i l l want t o have t h e case t r i e d i n another county. There must be a w e i g h i n g o f t h e odds." Faraga v. S t a t e , Rolling v. decision 514 S o . 2 d 2 9 5 , 307 State, 825 o f whether considered a So. t o seek matter of therefore, not generally collateral review."); (Okla. Crim. failing seek a counsel a an 298 change trial v. t o be State, ("[C]ounsel change this of venue under was strategic decision section these See a l s o ( F l a . 2002) by ("The i s usually counsel, and second-guessed 984 on P . 2 d 2 2 1 , 232 not i n e f f e c t i v e i n ... T h e d e c i s i o n t o n o t circumstances was a " ) . o f Ray's b r i e f , was i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g 45 1987). o f venue strategy issue Lambert App. 1999) 293, t o move f o r a c h a n g e o f v e n u e . reasonable, In 2d (Miss. Ray f u r t h e r t o move argues f o r funds that fora CR-06-2143 "jury consultant." However, Ray's amended p e t i t i o n ; this Court. See Moreover, trial h e was issue therefore, Kelley, Whatley this not raised i n i ti s not properly before 985 S o . 2 d a t 9 7 6 . testified n o t aware was that o f any case a t the time i n Dallas of County Ray's where funds had been g r a n t e d t o h i r e a j u r y c o n s u l t a n t i n a c a p i t a l murder case. (R. 4 2 5 . ) a prudent reasonably failing State, 990 S.W. i s part nearly n o t be ineffective for f o r a jury consultant. See B u s b y v . 2 d 2 6 3 , 2 7 1 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) ("[A] j u r y i s not a 'basic' jury-selection in a t t o r n e y would t o move f o r f u n d s consultant jury C e r t a i n l y , under these circumstances, of the defense. Selecting a attorney's o f an tool stock-in-trade. Although a expert's assistance every case, such would assistance no d o u b t b e i s a helpful luxury, not a necessity."). 3. Ray to next argues move to codefendant, counsel exclude Marcus s h o u l d have Ray raped no physical that and robbed evidence c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e portions Owden. of the Harville testimony Specifically, moved t o e x c l u d e because, to support 46 these for failing he of h i s argues Owden's t e s t i m o n y he a s s e r t s , crimes. that that t h e r e was CR-06-2143 This specific claim was not raised i n Ray's amended postconviction petition; therefore, i t i s not properly before this 985 S o . 2 d a t 9 7 6 . Court. Also, See K e l l e y , at trial counsel d i d move to exclude Owden's testimony and argued t h a t h i s t e s t i m o n y was n o t c o r r o b o r a t e d . On d i r e c t appeal, s p e c i f i c a l l y addressed we the issue of the a d m i s s i o n o f Owden's t e s t i m o n y a n d h e l d t h a t Owden's was sufficiently police, the crime victim. claim corroborated scene, by Ray's and the i n j u r i e s R a y , 809 So. 2 d a t 8 8 9 . underlying the own claim of counsel h a s no m e r i t , failing to raise this issue." (Ala. Crim. App. inflicted "Because ineffective could statements n o t be to on t h e the substantive assistance of 2009). 1173 counsel testimony ineffective for L e e v . S t a t e , 44 S o . 3 d 1 1 4 5 , 4. Ray ruling next on the convictions. tried the argues admissibility As of s t a t e d above, on t h e p r e s e n t double-homicide was s e n t e n c e d that h i s t r i a l to life charge counsel his prior five months R a y was t r i e d of Earnest Mabins imprisonment 47 f a i l e d t o seek a capital-murder before Ray was and c o n v i c t e d f o r and R e i n a r d Mabins and without the p o s s i b i l i t y of CR-06-2143 parole; we affirmed Whatley and T a y l o r those convictions also represented on direct Ray i n t h a t appeal. 6 capital-murder case. The circuit court stated the following regarding this claim: "Ray a l s o c l a i m s t h a t h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l were i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g to object to the State using h i s p r i o r c a p i t a l m u r d e r c o n v i c t i o n [ s ] t o p r o v e an aggravating factor and for failing to present evidence to mitigate this aggravating factor. "Ray's t r i a l c o u n s e l d i d , i n fact, object to Ray's capital murder convictions involving the Mabins brothers being used by the State as an aggravating circumstance. On d i r e c t appeal, the Alabama Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals h e l d t h a t '[t]he t r i a l court d i d not e r r i n admitting evidence of [Ray's] p r i o r [ c a p i t a l murder] c o n v i c t i o n [ s ] . ' Ray v . S t a t e , 809 S o . 2 d a t 8 8 1 . The f a c t t h a t trial c o u n s e l ' s o b j e c t i o n was o v e r r u l e d b y t h i s C o u r t i n n o way demonstrates that their performance was deficient. See B o y d v. S t a t e , 746 S o . 2 d 397 (holding that [ t r i a l counsel i s not i n e f f e c t i v e f o r h a v i n g an o b j e c t i o n o v e r r u l e d o r a m o t i o n denied'); see a l s o G i b b y v. S t a t e , 753 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 6 , 1 2 0 7 - 1 2 0 9 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1999) (holding that claims of i n e f f e c t i v e assistance of counsel that are refuted b y t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l r e w i t h o u t m e r i t ) . "This completely claim of ineffective assistance is without merit; therefore, i t i s denied." S e e R a y v . S t a t e (No. C R - 9 8 - 1 7 2 0 ) , C r i m . App. 2000) (table). 6 48 810 S o . 2 d 805 ( A l a . CR-06-2143 (C.R. 1172-73.) claim i s not no We agree supported by with the the circuit r e c o r d ; t h e r e f o r e , Ray failing further argues that counsel t o engage a m e n t a l - h e a l t h Specifically, Ray asserts that would have assisted f a m i l y members and evidence counsel friends, supporting in was expert Ray's phase r e q u i r e d m e n t a l - h e a l t h e x p e r t s and was due ineffective for o r an defense investigator. in t h a t an p. the guilt investigator " c o n t a c t i n g and i n t e r v i e w i n g h e l p i n g to uncover arguments that a vast could p r e s e n t e d a t b o t h t h e g u i l t and p e n a l t y p h a s e . " at This relief. Ray of court. amount gave (Ray's been brief, 111.) The counsel's circuit failure court stated the following to obtain a mental-health concerning expert: "There was no evidence presented at the e v i d e n t i a r y hearing p r o v i n g t h a t at the time Ray m u r d e r e d H a r v i l l e he was s u f f e r i n g f r o m d e l u s i o n s , was unable to understand the consequences of h i s a c t i o n s , o r was u n a b l e t o d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n r i g h t and wrong. M o r e o v e r , t r i a l c o u n s e l r e p r e s e n t e d Ray at h i s c a p i t a l murder t r i a l f o r the murders of Earnest and Reinhard Mabins. The trial in the Mabins case took p l a c e i n February 1999. Ray's t r i a l i n the H a r v i l l e case t o o k p l a c e f i v e months later i n J u l y 1999. B e f o r e Ray's t r i a l i n the M a b i n s c a s e he was e v a l u a t e d b y D r . K a t h y R o n a n , an e x p e r t i n c l i n i c a l and f o r e n s i c p s y c h o l o g y . Dr. 49 CR-06-2143 Ronan r e p o r t e d t h a t she f o u n d 'no i n f o r m a t i o n t o i n d i c a t e t h a t [Ray] h a s e v e r s u f f e r e d f r o m any t y p e of m a j o r p s y c h i a t r i c d i s o r d e r w h i c h w o u l d r e n d e r him out of touch w i t h r e a l i t y or unable to understand r i g h t f r o m w r o n g , n o r was he s u f f e r i n g f r o m such d u r i n g t h e t i m e o f t h e a l l e g e d o f f e n s e . ' The C o u r t can f i n d n o t h i n g i n Ronan's r e p o r t t h a t r e a s o n a b l y s h o u l d have caused Ray's t r i a l c o u n s e l t o b e l i e v e a m e n t a l h e a l t h e x p e r t w o u l d have a s s i s t e d them d u r i n g the g u i l t phase of Ray's t r i a l i n the H a r v i l l e case. See H o l l a d a y v . H a l e y , 209 F . 3 d 1243, 1250 (11th Cir. 2000) ( h o l d i n g t h a t ' c o u n s e l i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o s e e k an i n d e p e n d e n t e v a l u a t i o n when t h e defendant does not display strong evidence of mental p r o b l e m s ' ) ; s e e a l s o C a l l a h a n v . C a m p b e l l , 428 F.3d 8 9 7 , 933 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . "The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t R a y f a i l e d t o s a t i s f y h i s burden of p r o v i n g by a preponderance of the e v i d e n c e his t r i a l c o u n s e l were d e f i c i e n t f o r not p r e s e n t i n g t e s t i m o n y from a mental h e a l t h e x p e r t d u r i n g the g u i l t p h a s e o f t r i a l was d e f i c i e n t . R u l e 32.3, A l a . R. C r i m . P. See B r o o k s v . S t a t e , 695 S o . 2 d 1 7 6 , 182 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996) (holding that ' [ p ] r e j u d i c e c a n n o t m e r e l y be a l l e g e d ; i t m u s t be affirmatively proved'). As this claim of ineffective assistance relates to t r i a l counsel's performances d u r i n g the g u i l t phase of Ray's t r i a l , i t i s d e n i e d by t h e C o u r t . " (C.R. the 1112-13.) r e c o r d of Ray's The of The not circuit original by reason that supported by Ray originally entered a plea of mental disease or defect. a t t o r n e y s moved competency both are trial. record indicates guilty court findings at the for time a mental evaluation o f the murder and 50 at the Ray's of Ray's time of CR-06-2143 trial. C o u n s e l a l s o moved f o r t h e 7 neuropsychologist. The motion Ray's p l e a of not g u i l t y by were w i t h d r a w n by W h a t l e y a f t e r he for t h a t had been c o m p l e t e d by (Trial record, p. stated that d i d move f o r a n because he been a he said, "fruitful i t was At the his avenue a a r e c e i v e d the Dr. to or hearing independent mental that pursue." i t would (R. and defect mental-health Ronan a t T a y l o r evidentiary opinion clinical neuropsychologist reason of mental disease report 63.) appointment of 382.) Hardin. Whatley evaluation not have Whatley testified: "[I]nitially the information in the forensic e x a m i n a t i o n c o n d u c t e d by the S t a t e I believe i t was K a t h y R o n a n . I d i d n ' t r e m e m b e r t h e name u n t i l I saw t h e r e p o r t h e r e t o d a y . B u t t h a t w o u l d be t h e i n i t i a l b i t o f i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t I was p r o v i d e d at the s t a r t of the case. F r o m t h e r e my conversations w i t h D o m i n i q u e h i m s e l f and w i t h h i s f a m i l y members, p r i m a r i l y h i s m o t h e r , l e d me t o make a d e c i s i o n t h a t t h e r e was n o t h i n g t h e r e t h a t w o u l d b e h e l p f u l t o u s t o use e i t h e r i n the g u i l t phase or the penalty p h a s e as I u n d e r s t o o d i t a t t h a t t i m e . " (R. 382.) Certainly, " [ T ] r i a l counsel h a d no r e a s o n t o r e t a i n another p s y c h o l o g i s t to d i s p u t e the f i r s t expert's f i n d i n g s . 'A p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n d o e s n o t s h o w i n e f f e c t i v e The r e c o r d of Ray's t r i a l i n d i c a t e s t h a t the motion s e e k i n g a m e n t a l e v a l u a t i o n was f i l e d i n regard to both of Ray's p e n d i n g c a p i t a l - m u r d e r c a s e s t h e M a b i n s h o m i c i d e s and the H a r v i l l e homicide. ( T r i a l r e c o r d , p. 11.) 7 51 CR-06-2143 a s s i s t a n c e m e r e l y b e c a u s e i t p r e s e n t s a new expert o p i n i o n t h a t i s d i f f e r e n t from the t h e o r y used at t r i a l . ' S t a t e v . Combs, 100 O h i o A p p . 3 d 90, 1 0 3 , 652 N . E . 2 d 2 0 5 , 213 ( 1 9 9 4 ) . See a l s o S t a t e v . Frogge, 359 N.C. 2 2 8 , 2 4 4 - 4 5 , 607 S . E . 2 d 6 2 7 , 637 (2005). 'Counsel i s not i n e f f e c t i v e for failing to shop a r o u n d f o r a d d i t i o n a l e x p e r t s . ' S m u l l s v . S t a t e , 71 S.W.3d 1 3 8 , 156 (Mo. 2002). 'Counsel is not required to "continue looking for experts just b e c a u s e t h e one he h a s c o n s u l t e d g a v e a n u n f a v o r a b l e opinion." S i d e b o t t o m v . D e l o , 46 F . 3 d 7 4 4 , 753 ( 8 t h Cir. 1995).' W a l l s v . B o w e r s o x , 151 F . 3 d 8 2 7 , 835 (8th C i r . 1998)." Waldrop 2007). v. State, See 987 So. a l s o Ward v. 2d Hall, 1186, 592 F.3d 2010) ("'[T]he mere f a c t a d e f e n d a n t fact, a mental him does for failing v. not demonstrate to produce Singletary, v . M o o r e , 134 that in F.3d 642, 654-55 the 1173 find, reports ineffective Quoting (11th C i r . 1997)); ( 4 t h C i r . 1998) of the the favorably for was at t r i a l . ' " 1475 (11th C i r . years a f t e r testify counsel App. ("We mental Davis Gilbert cannot say examinations counsel's f a i l u r e to retain a p s y c h i a t r i c expert investigate testimony 1471, can trial (Ala. Crim. 1144, will that expert F.3d of who that 119 light performed, health expert 1193 this fell area outside further or the broad Based on adequate conduct."). conducted at Taylor Hardin we range the cannot 52 to provide of report say to mitigating professionally that t h a t any had been reasonable CR-06-2143 attorney would Therefore, have Ray f a i l e d pursued a to satisfy mental-health the Strickland defense. test. 6. Ray for next failing asserts to that witnesses car argues use "helpful counsel that his trial evidence." failed to use t h e v i c t i m was l a s t issue petition; was i n e f f e c t i v e Specifically, statements seen g e t t i n g was n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y therefore, "An a p p e l l a t e cannot a postconviction the p o s t c o n v i c t i o n by r a i s e an i s s u e relief relief before on a p p e a l petition which petition." was green. Court. the denial not raised i n Dunaway v . S t a t e , So. 3d 32 , [Ms. ( A l a . Crim. 2009). Moreover, testimony the record that two indicates witnesses saw that Rod counsel Suttle presented stab Tiffany H a r v i l l e and t h a t S u t t l e had been i n d i c t e d f o r c a p i t a l Counsel had brown Rule this from he three into a r a i s e d i n Ray's i t i s not properly CR-06-0996, December 18, 2009] App. counsel when R a y ' s v e h i c l e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e m u r d e r was This of that also presented been w i t h Latonya sister's the testimony the v i c t i m immediately Simmons testified that h o u s e on t h e d a y t h a t 53 murder. o f t h r e e i n d i v i d u a l s who before she t h e v i c t i m was she d i s a p p e a r e d . disappeared. at Latonya's She further CR-06-2143 testified alley that near her s i s t e r ' s disappeared the numerous alley numerous disappeared 6:00 p.m. home t h e r e of that i n an on t h e d a y t h e v i c t i m S u t t l e , were i n individuals. Patricia t h e v i c t i m was a t h e r h o u s e o n t h e d a y and t h a t s h e was a t h e r house until t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e was w i t h h o u s e a n d t h a t when T i f f a n y l e f t were the congregate individuals, including E r i c a Powell a t Simmons's one house and t h a t -- R a y was n o t o n e o f t h o s e Simmons t e s t i f i e d she i n d i v i d u a l s would a l o tof people individuals. i n the alley Counsel did around the v i c t i m h e r h o u s e t o go a n d R a y was n o t present "helpful evidence." Ray f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t h i s t r i a l for failing confession, to that present the Owden, h i s c o d e f e n d a n t , At to the evidence confession record to present i s silent that was was i n e f f e c t i v e Ray recanted unreliable, and his that dominated Ray. the evidentiary hearing why h e f a i l e d counsel counsel t h e above concerning this was n o t q u e s t i o n e d a s evidence. Therefore, claim. "'An ambiguous or silent record i s not s u f f i c i e n t to disprove the strong and c o n t i n u i n g presumption [of effective representation]. T h e r e f o r e "where t h e r e c o r d i s i n c o m p l e t e o r u n c l e a r a b o u t [ c o u n s e l ] ' s a c t i o n s , we w i l l p r e s u m e t h a t h e 54 CR-06-2143 d i d w h a t he s h o u l d h a v e done, a n d t h a t he e x e r c i s e d reasonable professional judgment."' Chandler v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 218 F . 3 d 1 3 0 5 , 1 3 1 4 n . 15 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2000) (en b a n c ) ( q u o t i n g W i l l i a m s v . Head, 185 F . 3 d 1223, 1228 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) ) . " G r a y s o n v . T h o m p s o n , 257 F . 3 d 1 1 9 4 , 1 2 1 8 ( 1 1 t h Cir. 2001). M o r e i m p o r t a n t l y , we q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Ray had r e c a n t e d was admissible. can n o t make declarations.'" or retracted portions of his "'As a g e n e r a l evidence Williams Crim. App. 1988), quoting rule, f o r himself, v. S t a t e , confessions one c h a r g e d w i t h by proof of h i s own 5 3 6 S o . 2 d 1 6 9 , 170 Stewart v. S t a t e , 63 A l a . "A ' s e l f - s e r v i n g d e c l a r a t i o n ' i s a s t a t e m e n t made o u t o f C o u r t w h i c h i s f a v o r a b l e t o t h e i n t e r e s t of t h e d e c l a r a n t . J a r r e l l v . S t a t e , 35 A l a . A p p . 2 5 6 , 50 S o . 2 d 767 ( 1 9 5 0 ) , r e v ' d o n o t h e r g r o u n d s , 255 A l a . 1 2 8 , 50 S o . 2 d 7 7 4 , a f f ' d , 2 5 5 A l a . 2 0 9 , 50 So. 2 d 7 7 6 ( 1 9 5 1 ) . O f c o u r s e , m o s t s t a t e m e n t s made by r a t i o n a l p e o p l e a r e s e l f - s e r v i n g . I n C h i s o l m v. S t a t e , 4 0 9 S o . 2 d 930 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 1 ) , t h i s court noted: "'The law i s well s e t t l e d i n this State t h a t s u c h s e l f - s e r v i n g d e c l a r a t i o n s o f an a c c u s e d , made b e f o r e o r a f t e r t h e o f f e n s e are n o t a d m i s s i b l e f o r him unless they a r e part of the r e s gestae.' (Emphasis added.) of c a s e was n o t p a r t "Moreover, '[t]he prime objection to this c h a r a c t e r o f p r o o f i s t h a t i tdoes v i o l e n c e t o t h e 55 (Ala. 1 9 9 , 200 (1879). "The s t a t e m e n t i n t h e p r e s e n t the res gestae. ... crime CR-06-2143 hearsay r u l e . Further, i t opens t h e door t o t h e introduction of untrustworthy declarations and permits a p a r t y t o manufacture h i s own e v i d e n c e . ' J a r r e l l , supra. ' I fa self-serving declaration i s i n a d m i s s i b l e as t e n d i n g t o prove t h e t r u t h o f t h e matter asserted, t h e i n a d m i s s i b i l i t y r e s u l t s from the hearsay r u l e . ' C. G a m b l e , M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e , §242.02 ( 3 d e d . 1 9 7 7 ) . " Kennedy v. 1985). Ray f a i l e d this State, So. 2d 1 3 3 3 , 1334 t o meet h i s b u r d e n (Ala. Crim. of proof App. i n regard to claim. Concerning failing to subservient court 469 stated Ray's present claim that evidence t o and s t r o n g l y c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e f o r indicating that Ray was i n f l u e n c e d b y Owden, t h e c i r c u i t the following: "Ray claims that 'family members' would have t e s t i f i e d t h a t M a r c u s Owden was a b a d i n f l u e n c e o n Ray. "As s t a t e d p r e v i o u s l y , R a y d i d n o t p r e s e n t a n y evidence a t h i s e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g from any f a m i l y member to support this claim of ineffective assistance. R a y p r e s e n t e d n o e v i d e n c e t h a t Owden f o r c e d him t o p a r t i c i p a t e , and subsequently coverup, t h e r a p e , r o b b e r y , a n d b r u t a l m u r d e r o f T i f f a n y Harville. "Ray completely failed to prove at h i s e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g t h a t h e was d o m i n a t e d b y M a r c u s Owden; t h e r e f o r e , t h i s C o u r t f i n d s t h a t R a y f a i l e d to s a t i s f y h i s burden of p r o v i n g that h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l ' s p e r f o r m a n c e was d e f i c i e n t a n d c a u s e d h i m t o be p r e j u d i c e d . R u l e 3 2 . 3 , A l a . R. C r i m . P. See B r o o k s v . S t a t e , 695 S o . 2 d 1 7 6 , 182 ( A l a . C r i m . 56 CR-06-2143 App. 1996) (holding that ' [ p ] r e j u d i c e cannot merely be a l l e g e d ; i t m u s t be a f f i r m a t i v e l y p r o v e d . ' ) . " (C.R. in 1132.) regard C l e a r l y , Ray to this "preponderance of failed claim -- t o meet h i s b u r d e n o f Ray the evidence" asserts that failed that he to show was proof by a entitled to ineffective for relief. Ray further failing to present interrogation to expert techniques "false confessions." been raised properly i n Ray's before Moreover, this our counsel evidence u s e d by This the issue research See has showing does not therefore, Kelley, 985 located no So. "false confessions," of the use i n d u c e d by of expert to led have i t is 2d Alabama at not 976. case in specifically testimony interrogation the case appear w h i c h t h i s C o u r t or t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t has addressed the m e r i t s that police in this amended p e t i t i o n ; Court. was concerning techniques. 8 "[A]s to the theory of f a l s e c o n f e s s i o n s , defendant h a s o f f e r e d no I l l i n o i s d e c i s i o n s h o l d i n g t h a t s u c h opinions are admissible. To be sure, expert t e s t i m o n y may be received under the helpfulness s t a n d a r d where i t i n v o l v e s knowledge or e x p e r i e n c e t h a t a j u r o r g e n e r a l l y l a c k s . K i m b l e v. E a r l e M. C f . S t a t e v . S m i t h , [Ms. C R - 0 6 - 0 8 9 8 , O c t o b e r 1, 2010] So. 3d (Ala. Crim. App. 2010) (plurality opinion c o n t a i n i n g d i c t a r e f e r e n c i n g t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s o r d e r as t o t h e u s e o f e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y on " f a l s e c o n f e s s i o n s " ) . 8 57 CR-06-2143 Jorgenson Co., 358 I l l . App. 3d 400, 409, 294 I l l . D e c . 4 0 2 , 830 N . E . 2 d 8 1 4 , 823 (2005). However, we do n o t f i n d a n y support for admissibility of f a l s e c o n f e s s i o n evidence i n the a u t h o r i t i e s cited b y d e f e n d a n t . See P e o p l e v . M i l l e r , 173 I l l . 2 d 167, 1 8 6 - 8 8 , 219 Ill.Dec. 43, 670 N.E.2d 721, 730-31 (1996) (DNA evidence a d m i s s i b l e where g e n e r a l l y accepted i n the relevant scientific community); People v. York, 312 I l l . A p p . 3 d 434, 437, 245 I l l . D e c . 2 2 7 , 727 N . E . 2 d 6 7 4 , 6 7 7 - 7 8 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ( c o u n s e l i n e f f e c t i v e i n f a i l i n g to present exculpatory DNA e v i d e n c e ) ; P e o p l e v . S m i t h , 236 I l l . A p p . 3 d 3 5 , 42, 177 Ill.Dec. 492, 603 N.E.2d 562, 566 (1992) (upholding admissibility of child psychologist's o p i n i o n as t o v i c t i m ' s t r u t h f u l n e s s ) . We recognize t h a t o p i n i o n s c o n c e r n i n g f a l s e c o n f e s s i o n s have been a d m i t t e d i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s . See U n i t e d S t a t e s v . H a l l , 93 F . 3 d 1 3 3 7 , 1345 (7th C i r . 1996), aff'd, 165 F . 3 d 1095 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ; M i l l e r v . I n d i a n a , 770 N . E . 2 d 7 6 3 , 774 ( I n d . 2 0 0 2 ) ; B o y e r v . F l o r i d a , 825 So.2d 418, 419 ( F l a . App. 2002). However, absent a t h r e s h o l d d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t such evidence meets Frye's general acceptance r e q u i r e m e n t , we h a v e no p o s i t i o n as t o t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f s u c h evidence h a d i t b e e n o f f e r e d . See F r y e v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 293 F. 1 0 1 3 , 1014 (D.C.Cir. 1923); In re Simons, 213 I l l . 2 d 523, 5 2 9 - 3 0 , 290 Ill.Dec. 610, 821 N.E.2d 1184, 1188-89 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . " People 1099, v. 328 Harris, Ill. 389 Dec. Ill. 567, App. 589 3d 107, 134, 904 N.E.2d (2009). "[W]e m u s t k e e p i n m i n d t h a t t h i s i s an i n e f f e c t i v e assistance c l a i m . The i s s u e i s not whether the e v i d e n c e c o u l d h a v e come i n , b u t w h e t h e r V a n B u r e n ' s c o u n s e l , by not o f f e r i n g [an e x p e r t ' s t e s t i m o n y on f a l s e c o n f e s s i o n s ] , f e l l b e l o w an o b j e c t i v e s t a n d a r d of reasonableness as m e a s u r e d a g a i n s t prevailing p r o f e s s i o n a l n o r m s . S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S. a t 6 8 8 , 104 S.Ct. 2052. Even i f Van Buren i s correct and false-confession expert testimony should be admitted, the published and unpublished cases 58 1077, CR-06-2143 c o n t a i n o n l y one i n s t a n c e o f i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n a t a t r i a l i n Wisconsin, n e a r l y f i f t y years ago. Given t h i s f a c t , we c o u l d n o t h o l d t h a t t h e f a i l u r e t o introduce such testimony f a l l s below ' p r e v a i l i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l norms.'" State v. Van Buren, 551-52 307 W i s . 2 d 4 4 7 , 4 5 9 - 6 1 , 7 4 6 N.W.2d 5 4 5 , (Wis. C t . App. 2008). Ray next asserts that counsel to object custodial counsel was i n e f f e c t i v e t o t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f s t a t e m e n t s made d u r i n g interrogation. Specifically, he he s a y s , he was n o t g i v e n When a d d r e s s i n g this claim, any Miranda the c i r c u i t Ray's asserts f a i l e d t o argue t h a t h i s s t a t e m e n t s were because, for failing 9 inadmissible warnings. court stated: "The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals s p e c i f i c a l l y h e l d on d i r e c t a p p e a l t h a t ' t h e t r i a l court d i d not e r r i n admitting [Ray's] three statements i n t o evidence.' R a y v . S t a t e , 809 So. 2 d at 887. Ray presented no evidence at h i s evidentiary hearing that would c o n f l i c t with the Criminal Court of Appeals' r u l i n g . Ray f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t a n y r e l a t i o n s h i p h e may h a v e h a d w i t h [Investigator] Freine or h i s consumption of a l c o h o l rendered h i s statements involuntary. Ray a l s o f a i l e d to present a n y e v i d e n c e p r o v i n g he was no informed of h i s Miranda rights before being questioned by F r e i n e . " (C.R. 1164-65.) 9 M i r a n d a v. A r i z o n a , 384 U.S. 4 3 6 59 (1966). that CR-06-2143 The Ray's that not record indicates statements that to police. counsel In that d i d move motion counsel advised o f h i s M i r a n d a r i g h t s and t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t s were part of police. these claims Ray, the argued t h e s t a t e m e n t s w e r e i n v o l u n t a r y b e c a u s e , h e s a i d , h e was c o e r c e d because t h e y were t h e r e s u l t o f " u n l a w f u l the t o suppress On d i r e c t a p p e a l , we addressed and found t h a t Ray's s t a t e m e n t s were 809 So. 2 d a t 8 8 6 - 8 9 . Ray's claim a c t i v i t y " on each o f admissible. i s not supported by record. 9. Ray next because the they asserts failed appellate review instead properly that were raised at histrial t o make timely court's applying of the standard objected says that counsel counsel was i n e f f e c t i v e objections, the plain-error resulting i n standard u s e d when r e v i e w i n g an to i n the c i r c u i t court. failed when t h e f o l l o w i n g to object 1 0 of issue I n h i s b r i e f , Ray issues trial: "[W]hether a c o n v i c t i o n that post-dates the offense at issue c a n be u s e d as an a g g r a v a t o r , whether admission o f Ray's convictions f o r the Mabins m u r d e r s was u n d u l y p r e j u d i c i a l , w h e t h e r t h e S t a t e The p l a i n - e r r o r standard presents a higher t h r e s h o l d t o s a t i s f y than r e v i e w i n g a c l a i m as t o w h i c h a p r o p e r o b j e c t i o n was made. S e e E x p a r t e W a l k e r , 972 S o . 2 d 737 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . 1 0 60 CR-06-2143 was r e q u i r e d t o a r r a i g n R a y on a new i n d i c t m e n t and whether admission of photographs of Harville's s k e l e t a l r e m a i n s was u n d u l y p r e j u d i c i a l . " (Ray's b r i e f , The claim a t p. circuit that the penalty court counsel capital-murder 119.) s t a t e d the did not convictions following i n regard object as an to the use aggravating of to Ray's his prior circumstance in phase: "Ray's t r i a l c o u n s e l did, i n fact, object to Ray's capital murder convictions involving the Mabins brothers being u s e d by the State as an aggravating circumstance. On direct appeal, the Alabama Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals h e l d t h a t '[t]he t r i a l court d i d not e r r i n a d m i t t i n g evidence of [Ray's] p r i o r [ c a p i t a l murder] c o n v i c t i o n . ' Ray v. State, 809 So. 2d a t 881. The fact that trial c o u n s e l ' s o b j e c t i o n was o v e r r u l e d b y t h i s C o u r t i n no way demonstrates that their performance was deficient. See B o y d v . S t a t e , 746 So. 2 d 397 [(Ala. C r i m . App. 1999)] (holding that ' t r i a l counsel i s n o t i n e f f e c t i v e f o r h a v i n g an o b j e c t i o n o v e r r u l e d o r a m o t i o n d e n i e d ' ) ; s e e a l s o G i b b y v . S t a t e , 753 So. 2d 1206, 1207-09 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999) (holding that claims of i n e f f e c t i v e assistance of counsel t h a t a r e r e f u t e d b y t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l a r e w i t h o u t merit). "This completely (C.R. claim of ineffective assistance is without merit; therefore, i t i s denied." 1172-73.) Counsel did capital-murder asserted on object to the c o n v i c t i o n s but appeal; not therefore, 61 on admission on the direct of Ray's prior same g r o u n d s a s appeal part of Ray this CR-06-2143 claim was reviewed standard. was on direct Nonetheless, admissible appeal Ray's p r i o r at Ray's under the plain-error capital-murder sentencing hearing. As conviction we stated in Ray: " I n J o n e s v . S t a t e , 450 So. 2 d 165 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983), a f f ' d , 450 So. 2 d 171 (Ala.), cert. d e n i e d , 469 U.S. 8 7 3 , 105 S . C t . 2 3 2 , 83 L . E d . 2 d 160 (1984), the S t a t e p r o v e d the f a c t of the d e f e n d a n t ' s prior capital c o n v i c t i o n . In Ex parte Siebert, supra, the trial court admitted evidence of the a p p e l l a n t ' s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n f o r m u r d e r made c a p i t a l b e c a u s e i t was c o m m i t t e d d u r i n g r o b b e r y i n t h e f i r s t d e g r e e . The A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t a f f i r m e d t h e use o f t h e p r i o r c a p i t a l c o n v i c t i o n as an aggravating circumstance i n S i e b e r t ' s subsequent c o n v i c t i o n of c a p i t a l m u r d e r u n d e r § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . Code 1975. Here, s i m i l a r l y , the trial court properly allowed consideration of the appellant's prior c a p i t a l c o n v i c t i o n a s an a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e i n the present case." 809 So. 2d at applicable a that following: another threat ... burden. has (2) The Section or the a Moreover, as the of proving penalty 13A-5-49, Ala. circumstances any phase Code shall involving Evidence of the of 1975, be the previously convicted felony person." c o n v i c t i o n s was burden at d e f e n d a n t was offense to the circumstances "[a]ggravating violence capital-murder State trial. an capital of The aggravating capital-murder provides its 881. use Ray's of or prior e s s e n t i a l f o r t h e S t a t e t o meet we 62 noted on direct appeal, the CR-06-2143 circuit court did allow any facts introduced but merely evidence the substantive convictions to convictions themselves. underlying no merits, raise this C r i m . App. to returned the "Because c l a i m of i n e f f e c t i v e counsel could issue." Lee not v. be surrounding of 44 So. 2d for claim 1145, failing 1173 in regard the lack against to of Ray, Ray's an the claim arraignment circuit that on court counsel has to (Ala. the new failed stated: "Ray d i d n o t t e s t i f y a t h i s e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g ; thus, there is nothing before this Court a f f i r m a t i v e l y p r o v i n g t h a t Ray d i d n o t understand the charges against him. B e c a u s e Ray did not t e s t i f y a b o u t w h a t he c o u l d have t o l d h i s trial c o u n s e l , t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t he h a s a b a n d o n e d t h i s 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 . ... "In the a l t e r n a t i v e , the Court f i n d s t h a t t h i s 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 i s without merit. The Alabama Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals found on d i r e c t a p p e a l t h a t '[Ray] had n o t i c e o f t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t him because a copy of the o r d e r s u b s t i t u t i n g the new indictment was sent to [Ray] and his a t t o r n e y s on S e p t e m b e r 9, 1 9 9 8 , m o r e t h a n 10 m o n t h s before t r i a l . ' R a y v . S t a t e , 809 So. 2 d a t 8 8 4 - 8 5 . " 1143-44.) We agree w i t h 63 the circuit court. to indictment "Ray claims that 'had [he] b e e n i n f o r m e d of the c h a r g e s a g a i n s t h i m , he c o u l d a n d w o u l d h a v e made a d d i t i o n a l e f f o r t s t o i m p r e s s upon c o u n s e l the l a c k o f e v i d e n c e a v a i l a b l e o f rape and robbery.' (C.R. the a s s i s t a n c e of counsel ineffective State, those 2009). Also, object be not CR-06-2143 The sole purpose of an arraignment i s to put the d e f e n d a n t on n o t i c e o f t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t h i m a n d t o g i v e t h e defendant the charges. R a y was opportunity See to enter § 1 5 - 1 5 - 1 , A l a . Code notified of the pending a formal 1975. plea to the I t i s clear charges. that Also, "[w]aiver of arraignment provides a basis for a claim of i n e f f e c t i v e assistance of counsel only i f t h e d e f e n d a n t c a n show h e was u n a w a r e o f t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t him. M c A r t h u r v . S t a t e , 169 Ga. A p p . 2 6 3 , 312 S . E . 2 d 358 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . I n t h e absence o f any c l a i m o r e v i d e n c e t h a t [ t h e d e f e n d a n t ] was n o t a w a r e o f t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t h i m , he h a s f a i l e d t o show t h a t c o u n s e l ' s p e r f o r m a n c e was d e f i c i e n t . " B i g g s v. S t a t e , Nor was admission scene. 2 8 1 Ga. counsel of When the 6 2 7 , 6 3 2 , 642 ineffective photographs addressing 7 4 , 79 for failing of this S.E.2d the claim to object victim on (2007). and direct the to the crime appeal, we stated: "Here, t h e p h o t o g r a p h s were r e l e v a n t because t h e y showed t h e i n j u r i e s s u f f e r e d by t h e v i c t i m and t h e location of the crime. They also depicted information contained i n the appellant's confession and i n s e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s ' t e s t i m o n y . Photographic evidence, i f r e l e v a n t , i s a d m i s s i b l e evan i f i t has a tendency t o i n f l a m e the minds o f the j u r y . Ex parte S i e b e r t , supra. Here, the a p p e l l a n t f a i l e d t o show t h a t t h e p h o t o g r a p h s w e r e u n d u l y p r e j u d i c i a l . " Ray, 809 So. 2d at 888. Counsel i s not i n e f f e c t i v e The photographs for failing 64 were admissible. t o o b j e c t when an issue CR-06-2143 has merit. raise 868, "[C]ounsel a baseless c o u l d 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 objection." Bearden v. S t a t e , 825 So. 2 d 872 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) . Moreover, " [ t h e p e t i t i o n e r ] o f f e r e d no e v i d e n c e t o overcome t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t c o u n s e l ' s f a i l u r e t o o b j e c t was sound t r i a l s t r a t e g y . Seasoned t r i a l counsel often decline t o object f o r s t r a t e g i c purposes. Barnett [ v . S t a t e ] , 1 0 3 S.W.3d [765] 772 [ ( M o . 2 0 0 3 ) ] . T h e y fear that frequent objections i r r i t a t e t h e j u r y and h i g h l i g h t the evidence complained of, r e s u l t i n g i n more harm t h a n good. I d . W i t h o u t e v i d e n c e o f t h e reasons f o r t r i a l counsel's f a i l u r e t o object, a movant does n o t overcome t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e f a i l u r e t o o b j e c t w a s a s t r a t e g i c c h o i c e made b y competent counsel. S e e S t a t e v . T o k a r , 918 S.W.2d 7 5 3 , 768 (Mo. b a n c 1 9 9 6 ) Jackson Ray v. S t a t e , 2 0 5 S.W.3d was due no r e l i e f 2 8 2 , 288 on t h i s (Mo. C t . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) . claim. 10. Last, i nregard t o Ray's c l a i m o f i n e f f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e - of-counsel, Ray a s s e r t s t h a t h i s t r i a l for failing t o move t o s e v e r t h e r a p e a n d r o b b e r y c h a r g e s the murder charge. As the State asserts counsel i n i t s brief, this p r e s e n t e d i n R a y ' s a m e n d e d R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n ; not properly before issue from t h i s Court. the denial issue 32 p e t i t i o n from was n o t therefore, "An a p p e l l a n t of a Rule 65 was i n e f f e c t i v e i ti s cannot r a i s e an which was n o t CR-06-2143 raised 2d i n the Rule 237, 239 32 p e t i t i o n . " (Ala. Crim. App. A r r i n g t o n v . S t a t e , 716 So. 1997). M o r e o v e r , we q u e s t i o n t h e v a l i d i t y sever the given that the underlying felonies capital-murder capital-murder have been of f i l i n g charges charges. and were A motion were necessary a motion to an e l e m e n t o f t o prove t o s e v e r w o u l d most the likely denied. IV. Ray to the next argues that the c i r c u i t court erred i n refusing a l l o w one o f h i s e x p e r t s , D r . H a r r i s o n Pope, t o t e s t i f y postconviction concerning At Ray's t h e end proceeding, v i a telephone at conference, s t e r o i d use. of the evidentiary hearing, the following occurred: "The C o u r t : W h a t I w a n t e d t o d o was t o r e s e r v e my r u l i n g u n t i l t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e h e a r i n g t o determine what i n evidence, what there i s i n evidence t h a t would j u s t i f y [Dr. Pope's] t e s t i m o n y . And t h r o u g h o u t t h i s whole p r o c e e d i n g s I have been t r y i n g t o ask questions of witnesses and look a t documents and t h a t type o f t h i n g t o determine just exactly what evidence exists t h a t M r . R a y was addicted to steroids. And t h e o n l y evidence I have of t h a t i s , o f c o u r s e , back t o Kathy Ronan's T a y l o r H a r d i n r e p o r t o f December o f 1997, page t h r e e , a n d I g u e s s a r g u a b l y t h e t e s t i m o n y f r o m t h e e x p e r t s who s a i d t h a t some o f t h e b e h a v i o r t h a t t h e y , t h a t M r . Ray e x h i b i t e d was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h some t y p e o f 66 CR-06-2143 s t e r o i d - i n d u c e d rage I believe. But other than t h a t , [ p o s t c o n v i c t i o n c o u n s e l ] , what e l s e do I h a v e ? "[Postconviction c o u n s e l ] : You have g o t t h e testimony of a l a y witness that also memorializes t h e change i n b e h a v i o r a t a r o u n d age s i x t e e n . With a l l due r e s p e c t , Y o u r Honor, w i t h o u t t h e b e n e f i t o f expert witness testimony, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to paint t h e e n t i r e p i c t u r e a n d e x p l a i n t o y o u why t h o s e d a t e p o i n t s are s i g n i f i c a n t and s c i e n t i f i c a l l y important. "The C o u r t : I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t , b u t t h e r e h a s g o t o b e some b a s i s t o b r i n g t h e e x p e r t u p h e r e t o testify. T h e r e h a s g o t t o be s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n j u s t what I see h e r e . " (R. 5 4 9 . ) Ray Ala. R. effects asserts Evid., by of steroid "If sc knowledge understand issue, a knowledge, education, opinion or Rule that 401, "[e]vidence the c i r c u i t excluding abuse. court violated the expert's Rule Rule testimony 7 0 2 , A l a . R. E v i d . , 702, on t h e states: i e n t i f i c technical, or other specialized will assist the t r i e r of fact to the evidence or t o determine a fact i n witness qualified as an expert by skill, experience, training, or may t e s t i f y t h e r e t o i n t h e f o r m o f a n otherwise." A l a . R. having Evid., defines any tendency "relevant evidence" as t o make t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a n y f a c t t h a t i s o f consequence t o the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the a c t i o n more p r o b a b l e evidence." or less probable than " A l l relevant evidence i t would be w i t h o u t t h e i s admissible, except as otherwise p r o v i d e d by t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o r 67 CR-06-2143 that by of the State other rules of Alabama, by s t a t u t e , by these applicable in the courts of this Evidence which i s not relevant i s not admissible." Ala. R. asserts on the that United S a l l a h d i n v. Gibson, the or State. Rule 402, Evid. Ray based rules, postconviction Dr. Pope's States testimony Court 275 F . 3 d 1 2 1 1 court erred of was Appeals' admissible decision (10th C i r . 2002), and in that to reversal i n excluding the In S a l l a h d i n , the defendant a s s e r t e d t h a t h i s counsel was testimony. ineffective steroid use Harrison have for failing on Pope, an to present evidence of the e f f e c t s of i n d i v i d u a l ' s behavior. t h e same e x p e r t The expert, i n v o l v e d i n Ray's case, Dr. could testified, "to a reasonable medical c e r t a i n t y , that [Sallahdin] had u s e d a n a b o l i c s t e r o i d s , a n d was experiencing prominent p s y c h i a t r i c e f f e c t s from a n a b o l i c s t e r o i d s at the time of the crime. As a result [his] behavior and judgement were m a r k e d l y a l t e r e d from those of h i s normal baseline p e r s o n a l i t y at the time of the crime." 275 F.3d counsel was evidence the at court 1238. The ineffective Sallahdin find that a t t h e g u i l t p h a s e b a s e d on t h e other t h a t had been p r e s e n t e d found that counsel was 68 court against d i d not S a l l a h d i n ; however, ineffective for failing to CR-06-2143 present the evidence undisputed that near the time present but Ray's Here, steroids Dr. them. remember of phase. It court excluded i s factually credible Also, attempted distinguishable suggests o f t h e murder. Ray t o l d from h e was Dr. K i n g also that he h a d b e e n stated steroids testified that that taking "addicted" Ray c o u l d n o t a t the time during evidence indicating time of expert's or of the h i s evaluation evidence Furthermore, from any a l t e r a t i o n s i n Ray's t h e murder. opinion was l i t t l e old. We fail on t h e e f f e c t s credible evidence to Ray's steroids. 69 period there family personality was n o members around see the relevancy that R a y was the of o f s t e r o i d a b u s e when t o suggest using completed by t o l d h i m t h a t he h a d o n l y u s e d s t e r o i d s f o r a b r i e f medical trial R a y was The r e p o r t her that also taking t i m e w h e n h e was 16 y e a r s to Sallahdin. h e was 16 y e a r s o l d a n d t h a t h e was whether steroids the evidence. evidence that counsel appears s t e r o i d use a t S a l l a h d i n ' s However, h e r r e p o r t murder. Ray concerning stated since penalty t h e murder. a t the time Ronan steroids to of case little the t h e d e f e n d a n t i n S a l l a h d i n was u s i n g evidence the lower at an there abusing CR-06-2143 Ultimately of this issue i s not about whether s t e r o i d u s e a n d i t s e f f e c t s was counsel was i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g admissible, Whatley b u t whether to present that When a s k e d a b o u t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f p r e s e n t i n g defense, the evidence a evidence. steroid-abuse testified: " I f t h e r e h a d b e e n a n y t h i n g more t h a n w h a t ' s i n t h a t one p a r a g r a p h [ i n t h e r e p o r t p r e p a r e d b y D r . R o n a n a t T a y l o r H a r d i n ] t h a t w o u l d l e a d me t o b e l i e v e t h a t i t h a d somehow i n f l u e n c e d h i m i n some w a y e n o u g h t o rise t o t h e l e v e l o f even being mitigation. I certainly considered the p o s s i b i l i t y of i t being r e l e v a n t as t o t h e mental s t a t e a t t h e time o f t h e offense, and i t d i d n ' t n e i t h e r [ s i c ] one a t t h e time. T h i s was a l l t h e r e was. I n my d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h D o m i n i q u e i t was n o t a b i g d e a l . I t was n o t a problem. I t was n o t a n i s s u e . " (R. 411.) Absolutely evidentiary hearing no e v i d e n c e was presented during the t h a t Ray had been a b u s i n g s t e r o i d s a t t h e t i m e o f t h e m u r d e r , t h a t t h e m u r d e r was a r e s u l t o f a s t e r o i d induced episode, o r t h a t R a y ' s p e r s o n a l i t y was a l t e r e d a t t h e time o f t h e murder. C l e a r l y , counsel h a d no r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t s t e r o i d u s e was a n i s s u e i n t h i s case. no testimony regarding this See P e r a i t a v. S t a t e , 897 evidence o f s t e r o i d abuse, expert i s s u e would n o t have been r e l e v a n t . So. 2d 1161 ( A l a . Crim. App. 2003). 70 Because there was CR-06-2143 For court's the denial reasons stated of Ray's above, petition we P . J . , a n d Windom, J . , c o n c u r . 71 the for postconviction AFFIRMED. Welch, affirm circuit relief.

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.