Gary Wayne Searcy v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL07/08/2011 Notice: This 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-10-0950 Gary Wayne Searcy v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Henry C i r c u i t (CC-96-64.63) Court PER C U R I A M . The court's appellant, Gary Wayne Searcy, appeals d e n i a l o f h i s § 1 5 - 1 8 - 2 0 0 , A l a . Code postconviction convicted DNA of capital testing. In February the circuit 1975, motion f o r 1998, Searcy was murder f o rm u r d e r i n g Rory Lynn K i r k l a n d CR-10-0950 during the course imprisonment of a burglary. without the We notice timely appeal was (CR-97-2224, August 1998) ( t a b l e ) . postconviction requesting, circuit relief in part, postconviction his Searcy v. 21, 1998), denial So. State when life Searcy that advised (CR-99-1977, Rule Searcy v. filed 32, 32 a petition A l a . R. We the State 2d 4 9 6 ( A l a . C r i m . out-of-time appeal. of to parole. See Searcy to Rule court found that case sentenced of filed. 741 pursuant an was d i s m i s s e d the appeal because I n December 1999, court's appeal not He possibility appealed h i s conviction. of 1 App. for Crim. P., affirmed the petition after the Searcy " r e p e a t e d l y refused to to do February so 9, by counsel." 2001), 821 2 So. See 2d The c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s s e n t e n c i n g o r d e r s t a t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g facts: 1 "On t h e n i g h t o f M a r c h 12, 1996, u n i t s o f t h e H e n r y C o u n t y S h e r i f f ' s D e p a r t m e n t were d i s p a t c h e d t o the Englewood S u b d i v i s i o n i n n o r t h e n Henry County, A l a b a m a . They f o u n d t h e body o f R o r y L y n n K i r k l a n d , a w h i t e female, l y i n g a t the f o o t of a bed i n a p o o l of b l o o d . She h a d been s t a b b e d t e n t i m e s , m o s t l y i n the area of the chest. A l a r g e b u t c h e r k n i f e was embedded up t o t h e h i l t u n d e r n e a t h t h e v i c t i m ' s arm. She d i e d f r o m m u l t i p l e s t a b wounds t o t h e c h e s t and abdomen." I t a p p e a r s t h a t S e a r c y b e l i e v e d t h a t i f h i s a p p e a l was s u c c e s s f u l he w o u l d f a c e a p o s s i b l e d e a t h s e n t e n c e on a retrial. 2 2 CR-10-0950 1032 ( A l a . Crim. filed a s e c o n d R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n which the t r i a l denial of that September App. 2001) ( t a b l e ) . 22, 2006), In August petition. We file a brief 0053, J a n u a r y (table). In Court Searcy this Searcy that (CR-05-1255, ( A l a . Crim. filed appeal Court. v. S t a t e a after App. 2006) third Searcy See S e a r c y court's Rule 32 failed to v. S t a t e (CR-09- 3 July biological 4 2009, Searcy 28, 2 0 1 0 ) , ___ So. 3d ___ ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2010) 2010, Searcy requesting scene. See S e a r c y dismissed with We a f f i r m e d t h e c i r c u i t 988 S o . 2 d 1 0 8 2 (table). 2006, s e e k i n g an o u t - o f - t i m e a p p e a l , court denied. petition. In March that evidence The c i r c u i t filed filed DNA that a motion testing had been court denied a written notice i n the Henry be conducted collected the motion of appeal from Circuit on the t h e murder i n March 2011. to this Court. 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 o u r r e c o r d s r e l a t e d t o Searcy's previous proceedings i n t h i s Court. See H u l l v . S t a t e , 607 So. 2d 369 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) . 3 S e a r c y a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s c o u l d be t e s t e d : a k n i f e , two swabs c o l l e c t e d f r o m a s t a i n on t h e v i c t i m ' s foot, t o e n a i l c l i p p i n g s , the v i c t i m ' s nightgown, a sheet, a t o w e l , a n d a swab c o l l e c t e d f r o m a s t a i n on a l a v a t o r y i n t h e v i c t i m ' s house. 4 3 CR-10-0950 The court's is question ruling appealable. presented denying 5 Section a § in this case i s whether 15-18-200, A l a . Code 15-18-200, e f f e c t i v e a circuit 1975, motion August 1, 2009, provides: "(a) An individual convicted of a capital o f f e n s e who i s s e r v i n g a term of imprisonment or a w a i t i n g e x e c u t i o n of a sentence of death, through w r i t t e n motion to the c i r c u i t c o u r t t h a t entered the j u d g m e n t o f s e n t e n c e , may a p p l y f o r t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f f o r e n s i c d e o x y r i b o n u c l e i c a c i d (DNA) t e s t i n g on s p e c i f i c evidence, i f t h a t e v i d e n c e was secured i n r e l a t i o n to the i n v e s t i g a t i o n or p r o s e c u t i o n that resulted i n the c o n v i c t i o n of the applicant, is s t i l l a v a i l a b l e f o r t e s t i n g as o f t h e d a t e o f t h e m o t i o n , f o r e n s i c DNA t e s t i n g was not p e r f o r m e d on t h e c a s e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e i n i t i a l t r i a l , and the r e s u l t s o f t h e f o r e n s i c DNA t e s t i n g , on i t s f a c e , would demonstrate the c o n v i c t e d i n d i v i d u a l ' s f a c t u a l i n n o c e n c e o f t h e o f f e n s e c o n v i c t e d . The f i l i n g o f a m o t i o n as p r o v i d e d in this subsection shall not a u t o m a t i c a l l y s t a y an e x e c u t i o n . " ( b ) U p o n r e c e i p t o f a m o t i o n f o r DNA testing, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s h a l l n o t i f y t h e s t a t e and shall a f f o r d t h e s t a t e an o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e s p o n d t o t h e motion. "(c) After notice to the state and an o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e s p o n d , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t may order f o r e n s i c DNA t e s t i n g a n d a n a l y s i s i f t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t a l l of the f o l l o w i n g a p p l y : " ' ( 1 ) The s p e c i f i c e v i d e n c e w h i c h petitioner has requested be subject the to " [ J ] u r i s d i c t i o n a l m a t t e r s a r e o f s u c h m a g n i t u d e t h a t we t a k e n o t i c e o f them a t any t i m e and do so e v e n ex mero motu." Nunn v. B a k e r , 518 So. 2d 711, 712 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . 5 4 CR-10-0950 f o r e n s i c DNA t e s t i n g and a n a l y s i s i s s t i l l in existence and is in a condition that a l l o w s f o r e n s i c DNA t e s t i n g a n d a n a l y s i s t o be c o n d u c t e d w h i c h w o u l d y i e l d a c c u r a t e a n d reliable results. " ' ( 2 ) The e v i d e n c e was n o t previously s u b j e c t e d t o n u c l e a r f o r e n s i c DNA testing o r was not s u b j e c t e d to a n o t h e r forensic DNA t e c h n o l o g y , a n d w h i c h may resolve an i s s u e n o t p r e v i o u s l y r e s o l v e d by any p r i o r f o r e n s i c DNA t e s t i n g a n d a n a l y s i s . The t y p e o f f o r e n s i c DNA t e s t i n g r e q u e s t e d m u s t be generally accepted in the forensic community w i t h the results eligible for i n c l u s i o n i n t h e N a t i o n a l DNA Index System of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). " ( d ) U p o n r e c e i p t o f a m o t i o n f o r DNA t e s t i n g o r n o t i c e o f a m o t i o n f o r DNA t e s t i n g , the s t a t e and t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s h a l l t a k e any steps reasonably n e c e s s a r y t o e n s u r e t h a t any remaining b i o l o g i c a l m a t e r i a l i n the p o s s e s s i o n of e i t h e r the s t a t e or the court i s p r e s e r v e d pending the completion of proceedings under this section. In the event biological material is not available or that reliable testing is not possible due to the c o n d i t i o n or absence of the b i o l o g i c a l m a t e r i a l , the court shall dismiss the application without prejudice. (2) I f the DNA t e s t i n g conducted under t h i s section produces conclusive evidence of the petitioner's factual innocence of the offense convicted, the p e t i t i o n e r , d u r i n g a 60-day period b e g i n n i n g on t h e d a t e on w h i c h t h e p e t i t i o n e r i s n o t i f i e d o f t h e t e s t r e s u l t s , may f i l e a p e t i t i o n t o the circuit court that ordered the testing for p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 32.1 of the 5 CR-10-0950 A l a b a m a R u l e s o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e . Upon r e c e i p t o f a petition, the c i r c u i t court that ordered the t e s t i n g s h a l l consider the p e t i t i o n pursuant to Rule 32, et seq. of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure." Section 12-3-9, jurisdiction of t h i s Ala. Court Code and 1975, addresses the states: "The Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction of a l l m i s d e m e a n o r s , i n c l u d i n g t h e v i o l a t i o n o f town and c i t y o r d i n a n c e s , habeas c o r p u s and a l l f e l o n i e s , including a l l postconviction writs in criminal cases." Amend. No. Const. 328, § 6 . 0 3 ( a ) , A l a . C o n s t . 1901 ( O f f . Recomp.)), 1901 (now § 1 4 1 ( a ) , A l a . further provides: "The court of criminal appeals ... shall e x e r c i s e a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n under such terms and c o n d i t i o n s as s h a l l be p r o v i d e d by l a w a n d b y r u l e s of t h e supreme c o u r t . " "In Alabama, a conviction. t h e r e i s no That r i g h t constitutional i s p r o v i d e d ... b y s t a t u t e 2 2 - 1 3 0 , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . " D i x o n v. C i t y 4 6 2 , 463 2003). ( A l a . C r i m . App. Ala. App. 16, 66 S o . Code right 2 d 567 to appeal in § So. 2d See a l s o D a w s o n v . S t a t e , 37 (1952). o f M o b i l e , 859 1975, p r o v i d e s : Section 12-22-130, A l a . "A p e r s o n c o n v i c t e d o f a c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t o r o t h e r c o u r t f r o m w h i c h an a p p e a l lies directly t o t h e Supreme Court or Court o 6 12¬ CR-10-0950 C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s may appeal c o n v i c t i o n to the a p p r o p r i a t e I n a c r i m i n a l c a s e , an been c o n v i c t e d and 2d (Ala. Crim. 1093, cannot 1096 be taken conviction unless A l a . App. 632, v. 939 State, imposing a v. sentence offense); 1995) So. 1975, Hughes v. (Ala. 218 2d So. 948 court's Thornton 1980). 2d 285, 286 (Ala. Crim. ruling of v. State, to has 390 So. "[a]n appeal the judgment of H a r r i s v. S t a t e , 44 (1969). App. vacating life a defendant However, subsequent of See 2005) a death also Hart (no r i g h t to and without imprisonment sentence the o f p a r o l e b a s e d on t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n Simmons, f o r anyone Weeks v. (death-row Code App. order sentence possibility Roper an See after a u t h o r i z e d by s t a t u t e . " 632, appeal a c i r c u i t appeal l i e s sentenced. from from the judgment appellate court." Crim. appealable). App. 45 U.S. 551 (2005), under the age of 18 State, 663 So. 2d could not barring 1045 inmate finding State, 543 that the 250, (order 251, denying the time death of (Ala. Crim. a § inmate/defendant A l a . App. 1969) appeal at a the App. 15-16-23, A l a . i s not insane); So. 2d 862, 863 probation is not 228 6 We have h e l d t h a t m o t i o n s f i l e d p u r s u a n t § 13A-5-9.1, Ala. Code 1975, and § 15-22-54.1, A l a . Code 1975, are appealable to t h i s Court because those motions are a 6 7 CR-10-0950 Absent authorizing motion rule no f r o m § 1 5 - 1 8 - 2 0 0 , A l a . Code 1975, i s any p r o v i s i o n an f o r DNA appeal testing. authorizing jurisdiction from the denial Neither s u c h an a p p e a l . to consider this c a n we of a find Accordingly, appeal, and postconviction any s t a t u t e this or C o u r t has i t is hereby dismissed. APPEAL DISMISSED. W e l c h , P . J . , a n d Windom, K e l l u m , B u r k e , and J o i n e r , J J . , concur. c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g c a s e f o r r e s e n t e n c i n g b a s e d on n e w l y e n a c t e d l e g i s l a t i o n . See P r e s t w o o d v. S t a t e , 915 So. 2d 582 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2005) ( t h e d e n i a l o f a K i r b y v. S t a t e , 899 So. 2d 968 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , m o t i o n i s a p p e a l a b l e t o t h i s C o u r t ) ; Ex p a r t e J o n e s , [Ms. CR-09-1576, O c t o b e r 1, 2010] So. 3d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2010) ( t h e d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n f o r t r e a t m e n t as a t e c h n i c a l p r o b a t i o n v i o l a t o r i s a p p e a l a b l e t o this Court). However, a m o t i o n f o r DNA t e s t i n g i s n o t a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f a c a s e b u t a new a c t i o n i n t h e l o w e r c o u r t . The s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s t h a t i f t h e DNA t e s t i n g r e n d e r s f a v o r a b l e r e s u l t s the defendant should f i l e a p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n u n d e r R u l e 32, A l a . R. C r i m . P. See § 15-18-200(h) ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975. 8

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.