Ex parte Joe Nathan James, Jr. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Joe Nathan James, Jr. v. State of Alabama)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel 11/06/2009 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 , A l a b a m a 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1051693 Ex p a r t e J o e N a t h a n James, J r . PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In r e : J o e Nathan James, J r . v. S t a t e o f Alabama) J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t , CC-95-4747.60; C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s , CR-04-0395) PER CURIAM. 1051693 Joe of Nathan certiorari decision Ala. James, to Jr., petitioned review the affirming the c i r c u i t R. C r i m . 0395, A p r i l P., p e t i t i o n . 28, 2006] Court the of Court f o ra writ Criminal Appeals' c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f h i s Rule 32, See James v . S t a t e , So. 3d We g r a n t e d t h e w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i . we r e v e r s e t h e C o u r t this (Ala. Crim. [Ms. C R - 0 4 App. 2006). For the following reasons, o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s ' judgment and remand case. Facts and P r o c e d u r a l History I n J u n e 1 9 9 9 , J a m e s was c o n v i c t e d o f m u r d e r made because i t was Criminal Appeals facts from committed during incorporated into the t r i a l a burglary. The C o u r t of i t s opinion the following court's sentencing order regarding the underlying offense: "'[James], a former b o y f r i e n d o f t h e v i c t i m , F a i t h H a l l , h a d been s t a l k i n g and t h r e a t e n i n g M s . H a l l b e f o r e h e r d e a t h . On t h e e v e n i n g o f A u g u s t 15, 1994, a s Ms. H a l l and a f r i e n d r e t u r n e d t o t h e f r i e n d ' s a p a r t m e n t , t h e y saw [James] f o l l o w i n g them i n h i s v e h i c l e . When t h e y saw [James] t h e y began t o r u n t o t h e apartment. "'Despite t h e i r attempts t o h o l d the f r o n t d o o r c l o s e d , [James] f o r c e d h i s way i n t o t h e apartment. Ms. H a l l b e g a n t o s c r e a m , as [James] came i n w i t h a p i s t o l i n h i s hand. When s h e c o u l d n ' t c a l m h i m down, she b e g a n t o r u n f o r t h e f r o n t door. 2 capital 1051693 [James] s h o t a t h e r , b u t m i s s e d . Ms. H a l l as turned and ran toward the bathroom hroo [James] f o l l o w e d a n d s h o t h e r i n t h e h e a d , c h e s t , and abdomen. [James] r a n o u t t h e b a c k d o o r a n d l e f t i n h i s a u t o m o b i l e . Ms. T 1 r-r-,~,^ n HTa ,l1 l d i e d - cr o m h e r wounds. f T ,, ,, j [James] was arrested i n California.'" James, So. 3d at . The jury, recommended t h a t James be s e n t e n c e d accepted death. and the jury's The C o u r t sentence. 2000). James's p e t i t i o n s of Criminal court decision After The petition. to the Court The court's circuit James a on d i r e c t of by some court then appealed judgment. The t r i a l court James to (Ala. Crim. App. denied to review the Court appeal. a Rule 3 2 , A l a . R. the State, claims in Crim. the circuit James's amended an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on t h e r e m a i n i n g of C r i m i n a l Court filed response dismissed p e t i t i o n and c o n d u c t e d claims. 12-0, affirmed his conviction f o r a w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i summarily of sentenced 788 S o . 2 d 185 2 0 0 2 , James t i m e l y petition. vote and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t Appeals' I n May P., r e c o m m e n d a t i o n and James v . S t a t e , a to death. of Criminal Appeals This Court by issued the denial an o r d e r denying the of h i s Rule 32 petition affirmed the circuit Appeals. Criminal Appeals See J a m e s , So. 3d a t . Concerning the m a j o r i t y of the 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 3 claims 1051693 James raised Appeals, sua i n h i s Rule sponte, 32 petition, held that they the of Criminal presumably were Court barred, stating: " T h r o u g h o u t h i s b r i e f , [James] a r g u e s t h a t h i s t r i a l counsel rendered i n e f f e c t i v e assistance during t h e g u i l t and p e n a l t y p h a s e s o f h i s t r i a l . After t h e j u r y recommended t h a t he be s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h , he f i l e d a p r o se m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l i n w h i c h he raised ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel allegations. After the trial court sentenced [James] t o d e a t h , n e w l y a p p o i n t e d a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l filed a motion f o r a new trial and r a i s e d an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim. F i n a l l y , he r a i s e d and t h i s c o u r t a d d r e s s e d and rejected several ineffective-assistance-of-trialc o u n s e l g r o u n d s on d i r e c t a p p e a l . See James, 788 So. 2d a t 191-94. T h e r e f o r e , [James's] i n e f f e c t i v e assistance-of-trial-counsel claim is precluded p u r s u a n t t o R u l e s 3 2 . 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) and ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., b e c a u s e i t was r a i s e d and a d d r e s s e d a t t r i a l and on d i r e c t a p p e a l . See Ex p a r t e I n g r a m , 675 So. 2d 863 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) . " ___ So. 3d a t ___ . We granted certiorari review to c o n s i d e r sponte application whether the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals' sua of James's the preclusionary grounds a s s i s t a n c e - o f - c o u n s e l c l a i m s was Rule 39(a)(1)(D)(2), Ala. determination in sua sponte R. to error. App. P. of whether the Court applying the procedural ineffective-assistance-of-counsel 4 ineffective- See R u l e 3 9 ( a ) ( 2 ) Dependent of C r i m i n a l Appeals grounds claims, we upon and our erred to James's also granted 1051693 certiorari review to determine Appeals erred circuit court's denial in forma funds and James's refusing pauperis and expert by the or whether t o r e v i e w what e f f e c t , of James's to proceed resulting lack investigative the Court initial funds a s s i s t a n c e had "[W]hen the facts are of i f any, the proceed his request for for a mental-health on t h e d e v e l o p m e n t ineffective-assistance-of-counsel Standard Criminal request to e x p a r t e on of of of claims. Review u n d i s p u t e d and an appellate court i s p r e s e n t e d w i t h pure q u e s t i o n s of law, the c o u r t ' s review i n a Rule 1097, 32 p r o c e e d i n g i s de 1098 novo." Ex p a r t e W h i t e , 792 So. 2d ( A l a . 2001). Discussion The sponte Crim. parties applied P., of-counsel agree that the p r e c l u s i o n a r y to the m a j o r i t y claims. preclusionary the Court grounds The in grounds of James's State of C r i m i n a l Appeals ineffective-assistance-of-counsel to 32, Ala. that the i t raised following c l a i m s James the three raised: "I(A), which alleged [ineffective assistance of c o u n s e l ] due t o i n a d e q u a t e c o m p e n s a t i o n , a n d c l a i m s I(G) 55 82 & 83 which alleged [ineffective a s s i s t a n c e of counsel] r e g a r d i n g the admission of p h o t o g r a p h s and m e d i c a l t e s t i m o n y . " 5 R. ineffective-assistance- alleges regard of Rule sua 1051693 (State's b r i e f , raised the mentioned at 9.) James does n o t preclusionary claims and grounds that dispute regard in those that to claims the the were State above- properly precluded. Concerning the remainder assistance-of-counsel raise of the claims, preclusionary Criminal grounds decision parte So. i n Ex 3d , 32 (Ala. grounds court of Rule "Rule In could 32. 32.3 We to James's which Rule ineffective- the State James a r g u e s sponte 32 Clemons, petition. appellate sua of Criminal Appeals decided Rule as grounds, Appeals' preclusionary of [Ms. is that application in conflict the not Court of the with our 4, 2007] the Court of James's a p p e a l from the d e n i a l of his 2007 ), issued Clemons, not sua state 1 0 4 1 9 1 5 , May did this sponte in after Court apply held the Clemons: states: "'The p e t i t i o n e r s h a l l h a v e t h e b u r d e n o f p l e a d i n g and p r o v i n g by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e of the evidence the facts necessary to e n t i t l e t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o r e l i e f . The s t a t e shall have the burden of pleading any ground of p r e c l u s i o n , but once a ground of 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 existence by a preponderance of the evidence.' 6 that an procedural 1051693 " ( E m p h a s i s a d d e d . ) R u l e 32.3 e x p r e s s l y i m p o s e s u p o n the S t a t e the burden o f p l e a d i n g an affirmative defense. Rule 32.7(d), 'Summary Disposition,' a u t h o r i z e s s u a s p o n t e a c t i o n b y ' t h e c o u r t . ' R u l e 1, Ala. R. Crim. P., p r o v i d e s : 'These r u l e s shall g o v e r n t h e p r a c t i c e and p r o c e d u r e i n a l l c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s i n a l l c o u r t s of the S t a t e of Alabama, and political subdivisions thereof, except as o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d by court rule.' However, the c o n t e x t of the r e f e r e n c e t o 'the c o u r t ' i n Rule 32.7(d) c l e a r l y l i m i t s the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the r u l e to p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t . See, e.g., the last sentence of Rule 32.7(d), providing that ' [ o ] t h e r w i s e [under c i r c u m s t a n c e s where the p e t i t i o n i s not summarily d i s m i s s e d ] , the c o u r t s h a l l d i r e c t t h a t t h e p r o c e e d i n g s c o n t i n u e and s e t a d a t e f o r hearing.' (Emphasis added.) Whether the trial court's authority continues after service of an answer o m i t t i n g a defense i s a q u e s t i o n not b e f o r e us. "The q u e s t i o n b e f o r e u s i n t h i s p r o c e e d i n g i s w h e t h e r t h e S t a t e may w a i v e t h e a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e of t h e p r o c e d u r a l b a r s o f R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( a ) and t h e r e b y enable the t r i a l c o u r t to e n t e r t a i n the p r o c e e d i n g on i t s merits. Rule 3 2 . 2 ( a ) , A l a . R. Crim. P., provides: "'(a) Preclusion of Grounds. A p e t i t i o n e r w i l l n o t be g i v e n r e l i e f u n d e r t h i s r u l e b a s e d upon any ground: " ' ( 1 ) W h i c h may still be r a i s e d on d i r e c t appeal under the Alabama Rules of A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e o r by p o s t t r i a l m o t i o n u n d e r R u l e 24; o r " ' ( 2 ) W h i c h was t r i a l ; or r a i s e d or addressed 7 at 1051693 "'(3) Which c o u l d have been but not r a i s e d at t r i a l , u n l e s s the ground r e l i e f a r i s e s under Rule 32.1(b); or was for " ' ( 4 ) W h i c h was r a i s e d o r a d d r e s s e d on appeal or in any previous collateral p r o c e e d i n g not d i s m i s s e d pursuant to the l a s t sentence o f R u l e 32.1 as a p e t i t i o n that challenges m u l t i p l e judgments, whether or not the p r e v i o u s c o l l a t e r a l proceeding was adjudicated on the merits of the grounds r a i s e d ; or "'(5) Which c o u l d have been but was n o t r a i s e d on a p p e a l , u n l e s s t h e g r o u n d f o r r e l i e f a r i s e s under Rule 32.1(b).' " ( E m p h a s i s added.) A l t h o u g h the r u l e i s w r i t t e n i n the p a s s i v e v o i c e , i f i t were c o n v e r t e d to the a c t i v e v o i c e i t w o u l d r e a d : 'A c o u r t w i l l n o t g i v e relief to a p e t i t i o n e r . ' I f we apply Rule 32.2 strictly a c c o r d i n g to i t s terms, no court could grant relief in a setting where preclusion is a v a i l a b l e as a d e f e n s e . " H e r e , we are interpreting a rule of procedure p r o m u l g a t e d by this Court pursuant to a u t h o r i t y c o n f e r r e d by A l a . C o n s t . 1901, A r t . V I , § 150 ( O f f i c i a l R e c o m p . ) (Amendment No. 3 2 8 , § 6 . 1 1 ) . S e c t i o n 150 p r o v i d e s : "'The supreme c o u r t s h a l l make and promulgate rules governing the administration of a l l courts and rules governing practice and p r o c e d u r e in a l l c o u r t s ; p r o v i d e d , however, t h a t such r u l e s s h a l l not a b r i d g e , e n l a r g e or modify the s u b s t a n t i v e r i g h t o f any p a r t y n o r a f f e c t t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f c i r c u i t and district courts ' "(Emphasis added.) 8 1051693 " I f we w e r e t o r e a d R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( a ) a s a l i m i t a t i o n upon t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o g r a n t r e l i e f i n i n s t a n c e s where p r e c l u s i o n i s a v a i l a b l e as a defense, thereby e n a b l i n g an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t t o invoke the defense sua sponte, we will have c o n s t r u e d a r u l e o f p r o c e d u r e i n a manner c o n t r a r y t o t h e a u t h o r i t y c o n f e r r e d upon t h i s C o u r t by t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n . T h i s we s i m p l y c a n n o t d o . The f a c t that adherence to the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l i m i t a t i o n upon our r u l e - m a k i n g power w i l l r e s u l t i n p r a c t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s cannot j u s t i f y our d i s r e g a r d i n g that limitation. ... fi " I n summary, t h e p r e c l u s i v e p r o v i s i o n s o f R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( a ) c a n n o t be r e a d a s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l . Because those procedural bars are n o n j u r i s d i c t i o n a l , they may ... be waived. Only in extraordinary circumstances may s u c h w a i v e r be o v e r c o m e b y an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t a c t i n g sua sponte." So. 3d a t (footnote In the p r e s e n t not p l e a d of Rule case, omitted). i t i s undisputed the State d i d the a f f i r m a t i v e defense of the p r e c l u s i o n a r y 32 concerning assistance-of-counsel the majority claims, thus d e f e n s e , a n d t h a t no " e x t r a o r d i n a r y would that justify application of the Court of the procedural of James's waiving that ineffectiveaffirmative circumstances" Criminal grounds exist Appeals' sua to of those grounds that sponte James's 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 c l a i m s as t o w h i c h t h e S t a t e did that not plead the a f f i r m a t i v e defense. the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals' 9 The State concedes sua sponte a p p l i c a t i o n of 1051693 the preclusionary grounds of Rule assistance-of-counsel claims its reversed judgment should court to consider be establishes, the affirmative the grounds The defense i n the circuit Criminal court B e c a u s e we consider on of-counsel which that granted Criminal Appeals erred any, circuit court's proceed funds, in forma which, he of Clemons Rule affect 32 Therefore, i t we remand the affirmative reverse case of James's r e m a i n i n g courts' waived an the are waived; the t h e m as the Court of the Court for that ineffective- Criminal Appeals certiorari by says, review d e n i a l of or ex resulted 10 the -- r e f u s i n g to pauperis is to remaining i n e f f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e - n e c e s s a r i l y reach we the As p l e a d e d or t h e y are not that ineffective- agree. grounds and that claims. remand James's c l a i m s , we and case remanded f o r pleading not the m e r i t s hold ineffective- Clemons that judgment assistance-of-counsel with concedes court. Appeals' to consider We do State g r o u n d s by James's of James's r e m a i n i n g t h a t m u s t be preclusionary of the preclusionary preclusionary jurisdiction. and claims. defenses to conflicts the m e r i t s assistance-of-counsel 32 s e c o n d i s s u e as whether review the Court of what e f f e c t , i f James's i n i t i a l parte in a to on his lack of request request funds to for for a 1051693 mental-health expert development of claims. and regard In Appeals investigative assistance, James's to had on the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel this issue, the Court of Criminal stated: "[James] contends t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of his requests f o r funds f o r a mental h e a l t h expert and investigative assistance prevented him from fully developing and presenting his claims. S p e c i f i c a l l y , he a p p e a r s t o a s s e r t t h a t t h e d e n i a l prevented him from e s t a b l i s h i n g that his trial counsel rendered i n e f f e c t i v e assistance during the g u i l t and p e n a l t y p h a s e s o f h i s t r i a l . However, f o r the reasons set f o r t h i n P a r t I of t h i s o p i n i o n , h i s ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim is p r o c e d u r a l l y barred from review. Therefore, [James] i s not e n t i t l e d to r e l i e f i n t h i s regard." James, So. Criminal 3d at Appeals preclusionary . B e c a u s e we erred grounds of in sua Rule 32 of circuit to Criminal court proceed funds, case to the on the prejudiced in forma which necessary to Appeals would his or i n not ex the Court applying majority of reviewing parte his on James's whether initial 11 the the motion his request allowed James the Therefore, we remand Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals f o r r e v i e w of t h i s merits. of the i t follows that denying have claims. the claims, James by pauperis possibly develop erred that sponte to ineffective-assistance-of-counsel Court hold for funds this issue 1051693 Conclusion Based Criminal court on the foregoing, Appeals Lyons, Murdock, of and t h e case i s reversed f o r proceedings R E V E R S E D AND t h e judgment remanded consistent with this the Court of to that Parker, and opinion. REMANDED. Woodall, Stuart, Smith, Bolin, J J . , concur. C o b b , C . J . , a n d Shaw, J . , * r e c u s e themselves. *Justice Shaw was a member o f t h e C o u r t A p p e a l s when t h a t c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h i s c a s e . 12 of Criminal

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.