Renard Marcel Daniel v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 04/29/2011 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-08-0670 Renard M a r c e l D a n i e l v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal WELCH, P r e s i d i n g from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CC-02-1327.60) Judge. The a p p e l l a n t , R e n a r d M a r c e l at Holman appeals Court Correctional Facility D a n i e l , c u r r e n t l y an i n m a t e on A l a b a m a ' s D e a t h Row, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s summary d i s m i s s a l o f h i s p e t i t i o n CR-08-0670 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 p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 3 2 , A l a . R. Crim. P. In 2003, Daniel was murdering L o r e t t a McCulloch of conduct 40(a)(10), convicted of capital murder f o r and J o h n B r o d i e d u r i n g one o r p u r s u a n t t o one p l a n A l a . Code 1975. o r scheme, see § The j u r y recommended, o f 10 t o 2, t h a t D a n i e l be s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h . course 13A-5- by a The vote circuit c o u r t f o l l o w e d t h e j u r y ' s recommendation and s e n t e n c e d D a n i e l to death. This Court a f f i r m e d Daniel's s e n t e n c e on d i r e c t 991 ( A l a . Crim. appeal. App. c o n v i c t i o n and d e a t h See D a n i e l v. S t a t e , 2004). We issued 906 So. 2d the c e r t i f i c a t e of j u d g m e n t on F e b r u a r y 18, 2005. On F e b r u a r y 14, 2006, D a n i e l f i l e d a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n i n t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t a t t a c k i n g h i s c o n v i c t i o n and d e a t h sentence. On J u l y 3 1 , 2006, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e petition. D a n i e l moved t h a t t h e c o u r t r e c o n s i d e r i t s r u l i n g . On A u g u s t 3 0 , 2006, t h e c o u r t v a c a t e d i t s J u l y 31 o r d e r a l l o w e d D a n i e l t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o amend h i s p e t i t i o n . 1 and Daniel We have h e l d t h a t a c i r c u i t c o u r t r e t a i n s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o m o d i f y a r u l i n g i n a p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n f o r 30 d a y s a f t e r that r u l i n g i s entered. See Ex p a r t e L o g g i n s , 910 So. 2d 146 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 5 ) . 1 2 CR-08-0670 f i l e d h i s f i r s t amended p e t i t i o n i n O c t o b e r 2006. On May 31, 2007, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t h e l d a s t a t u s h e a r i n g on t h e m e r i t s o f conducting a f u l l evidentiary hearing. s e c o n d amended p e t i t i o n i n O c t o b e r 2007. D a n i e l then In court petition. followed. i t s order set a On J a n u a r y 14, 2009, the c i r c u i t c o u r t d i s m i s s e d D a n i e l ' s p o s t c o n v i c t i o n This appeal filed out the sentencing Daniel to following facts death, surrounding the the circuit double homicide: "The h o m i c i d e s w h i c h were t h e b a s i s f o r t h e c h a r g e as s e t o u t i n t h i s i n d i c t m e n t o c c u r r e d on S e p t e m b e r 26, 2001, b e t w e e n t h e h o u r s o f 10:45 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. a t t h e v i c t i m ' s a p a r t m e n t l o c a t e d a t Oporto Madrid Boulevard, Birmingham, Jefferson County, Alabama. The t i m e o f o c c u r r e n c e c o u l d o n l y be e s t i m a t e d as one o f t h e w i t n e s s e s h e a r d f o u r (4) gunshots b e t w e e n 10:45 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. on S e p t e m b e r 26, 2001. The b o d i e s were d i s c o v e r e d t h e n e x t m o r n i n g on S e p t e m b e r 27, 2001, when t h e p o l i c e responded t o the scene of the h o m i c i d e s . I t was d e t e r m i n e d t h a t two (2) p e o p l e h a d b e e n m u r d e r e d i n an ' e x e c u t i o n - s t y l e k i l l i n g ' i n t h a t b o t h o f t h e v i c t i m s were l y i n g on t h e f l o o r w i t h one (1) s h o t t o the back of the head. Witness George J a c k s o n t e s t i f i e d f o r t h e S t a t e t h a t on S e p t e m b e r 26, 2001, he was living at ... O p o r t o Madrid Boulevard, Birmingham, Alabama. John B r o d i e and Loretta M c C u l l o c h l i v e d next door t o h i s apartment. On S e p t e m b e r 26, 2001, a f t e r he g o t o f f w o r k he went t o [ D a n i e l ' s ] a p a r t m e n t where he and [ D a n i e l ] d r a n k a c o u p l e o f b e e r s and smoked a j o i n t . E v e n t u a l l y t h e y went n e x t d o o r and i n t r o d u c e d t h e m s e l v e s t o t h e victims. B o t h v i c t i m s were d r i n k i n g and were v e r y 3 CR-08-0670 intoxicated. They began t o p l a y c a r d s u n t i l v i c t i m John B r o d i e c a l l e d [ D a n i e l ] h i s 'Brother N i g g e r . ' [ D a n i e l ] became a g i t a t e d and a n g r y . The victim a p o l o g i z e d and t r i e d t o c a l m [ D a n i e l ] . Witness George J a c k s o n t r i e d t o calm [ D a n i e l ] by e x p l a i n i n g t h a t t h e v i c t i m was d r u n k and d i d n ' t mean a n y t h i n g b y t h e r e m a r k . [ D a n i e l ] p u l l e d a p i s t o l and t h e v i c t i m s asked [ D a n i e l ] to leave t h e i r apartment. W i t n e s s George J a c k s o n w a l k e d out o f t h e apartment f i r s t , f o l l o w e d by [ D a n i e l ] . [ D a n i e l ] s t o o d a t t h e doorway o f t h e v i c t i m s ' a p a r t m e n t and f i r e d m u l t i p l e s h o t s a t t h e v i c t i m s . G e o r g e J a c k s o n t h e n went i n t o h i s a p a r t m e n t where he h e a r d one o f t h e v i c t i m s s a y , 'Are you a l l r i g h t ' and s h o r t l y a f t e r t h i s , h e a r d two more s h o t s . The w i t n e s s , due t o h i s f e a r o f [ D a n i e l ] , remained i n h i s apartment u n t i l the next day when he went t o h i s m o t h e r and s t e p f a t h e r ' s house and i n f o r m e d them o f t h e e v e n t s o f t h e n i g h t before. They c o n v i n c e d h i m t o go t o t h e p o l i c e . B a s e d upon t h e i n f o r m a t i o n he p r o v i d e d t o t h e B i r m i n g h a m P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t , a p a t r o l c a r was s e n t t o t h e v i c t i m s ' r e s i d e n c e where t h e b o d i e s were discovered. "Dr. Greg Davis of the J e f f e r s o n County C o r o n e r ' s O f f i c e p e r f o r m e d t h e a u t o p s y on each v i c t i m and d e t e r m i n e d t h a t J o h n B r o d i e d i e d f r o m a g u n s h o t wound t o t h e b a c k o f the head which c o n t a i n e d s t i p l i n g a r o u n d t h e e n t r a n c e wound. T h e r e were o t h e r g u n s h o t wounds t o v i c t i m J o h n B r o d i e b u t they would not have caused death, assuming reasonable medical a t t e n t i o n . " V i c t i m L o r e t t a M c C u l l o c h d i e d due t o a c o n t a c t g u n s h o t t o t h e h e a d . She a l s o had o t h e r wounds, b u t i n Dr. D a v i s ' s o p i n i o n , t h e s e w o u l d n o t have c a u s e d death, assuming r e a s o n a b l e m e d i c a l a t t e n t i o n . " W i t n e s s J u l i e F a r r o w t e s t i f i e d t h a t she l i v e d at Oporto M a d r i d B o u l e v a r d next door t o the v i c t i m s and [ D a n i e l ' s ] a p a r t m e n t on September 26, 2001. On t h e e v e n i n g o f September 26, 2001, b e t w e e n 10:45 4 CR-08-0670 p.m. a n d 11:00 p.m. she was w a l k i n g h e r dog when she h e a r d f o u r (4) g u n s h o t s . She h e a r d two t o t h r e e (2 or 3) s h o t s a n d s h o r t t i m e l a t e r h e a r d one o r two (1 or 2) more g u n s h o t s . " F u r t h e r t e s t i m o n y from t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e t h a t a p a i r o f t e n n i s s h o e s removed f r o m t h e t r u n k o f [ D a n i e l ' s ] a u t o m o b i l e were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e b l o o d y shoe i m p r e s s i o n n e x t t o t h e v i c t i m s ' bodies. " S h e l l c a s i n g s r e c o v e r e d f r o m t h e f r o n t d o o r and a d u m p s t e r were r e c o v e r e d where w i t n e s s G e o r g e J a c k s o n t e s t i f i e d he saw [ D a n i e l ] t h r o w them. These s h e l l c a s i n g s were r e c o v e r e d b y e v i d e n c e t e c h n i c i a n J a y Logan o f t h e Birmingham P o l i c e Department." (C. 13-15.) Standard o f Review R u l e 3 2 . 3 , A l a . R. C r i m . P., p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t "The by p e t i t i o n e r s h a l l have t h e b u r d e n a preponderance entitle of the evidence part: o f p l e a d i n g and p r o v i n g the facts necessary to the p e t i t i o n e r to r e l i e f . " Unlike the general p l e a d i n g requirements r e l a t e d to c i v i l cases, 2 the p l e a d i n g requirements f o r p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n s R u l e s 8, 9, a n d 10, A l a . R. C i v . P., g o v e r n p l e a d i n g s i n c i v i l c a s e s . " G e n e r a l l y , t h e p l e a d i n g s , i n and o f t h e m s e l v e s , are c o n s i d e r e d r e l a t i v e l y u n i m p o r t a n t b e c a u s e c a s e s a r e t o be d e c i d e d on t h e m e r i t s . " J o h n s o n v . C i t y o f M o b i l e , 475 So. 2d 517, 519 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . Though c i v i l i n n a t u r e , p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n s a r e n o t g o v e r n e d by t h e Alabama R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . R u l e 3 2 . 4 , A l a . R. C r i m . P., s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " P r o c e e d i n g s u n d e r t h i s r u l e s h a l l be g o v e r n e d b y t h e 2 5 CR-08-0670 are more s t r i n g e n t C r i m . P. and This rule are s e t out i n Rule 3 2 . 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. states: "The p e t i t i o n must c o n t a i n a c l e a r and s p e c i f i c statement o f t h e g r o u n d s upon w h i c h relief is sought, i n c l u d i n g f u l l d i s c l o s u r e of the f a c t u a l b a s i s of those grounds. A bare a l l e g a t i o n t h a t a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t has b e e n v i o l a t e d and mere c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w s h a l l n o t be s u f f i c i e n t to w a r r a n t any f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . " I n B o y d v. S t a t e , we 913 So. 2d 1113 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003), stated: " ' R u l e 32.6(b) r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n i t s e l f d i s c l o s e t h e f a c t s r e l i e d upon i n s e e k i n g r e l i e f . ' B o y d v. S t a t e , 746 So. 2d 364, 406 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1999). In o t h e r words, i t i s not the p l e a d i n g of a conclusion 'which, i f true, entitle[s] the p e t i t i o n e r to r e l i e f . ' L a n c a s t e r v. S t a t e , 638 So. 2d 1370, 1373 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1993) . I t i s the a l l e g a t i o n of f a c t s i n p l e a d i n g which, i f true, e n t i t l e a p e t i t i o n e r to r e l i e f . A f t e r f a c t s are pleaded, which, i f t r u e , e n t i t l e the p e t i t i o n e r to relief, the p e t i t i o n e r i s then e n t i t l e d to an o p p o r t u n i t y , as p r o v i d e d i n R u l e 32.9, A l a . R. C r i m . P., to present evidence p r o v i n g those alleged facts." 913 So. 2d a t 1125. I n Hyde v. S t a t e , and B r a c k n e l l v. S t a t e , Rules of C r i m i n a l 950 So. 2d 344 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2006), 883 So. 2d 724 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003), Procedure " 6 CR-08-0670 we s e t o u t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s n e c e s s a r y t o s a t i s f y t h e f u l l - f a c t p l e a d i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P.: "The b u r d e n o f p l e a d i n g u n d e r R u l e 32.3 a n d R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) i s a h e a v y one. C o n c l u s i o n s u n s u p p o r t e d b y s p e c i f i c f a c t s w i l l not s a t i s f y the requirements of R u l e 32.3 a n d R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) . The f u l l f a c t u a l b a s i s for t h e c l a i m must be i n c l u d e d i n t h e p e t i t i o n itself. I f , assuming e v e r y f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n i n a Rule 32 p e t i t i o n t o be t r u e , a court cannot determine whether the p e t i t i o n e r i s e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f , t h e p e t i t i o n e r has n o t s a t i s f i e d t h e burden of p l e a d i n g u n d e r R u l e 32.3 a n d R u l e 32.6(b)." 950 So. 2d a t 356. "[The p e t i t i o n e r ] f a i l e d t o i n c l u d e i n h i s p e t i t i o n any f a c t s t e n d i n g t o i n d i c a t e how t h o s e a c t s o r omissions p r e j u d i c e d h i s defense. He d i d n o t include s p e c i f i c f a c t s regarding the crimes or the e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d a t t r i a l , a n d he d i d n o t e v e n s t a t e i n h i s p e t i t i o n what h i s d e f e n s e was. Even a c c e p t i n g a l l o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n h i s p e t i t i o n as t r u e , we c a n n o t s a y w h e t h e r B r a c k n e l l i s e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f . T h e r e f o r e , B r a c k n e l l has n o t p r o v i d e d ' f u l l d i s c l o s u r e of the f a c t u a l b a s i s ' of h i s claims necessary to s a t i s f y the s p e c i f i c i t y requirements of R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., a n d t h e p l e a d i n g requirements of Rule 32.3, A l a . R. Crim. P. Accordingly, the c i r c u i t court p r o p e r l y denied h i s claims of i n e f f e c t i v e assistance of t r i a l counsel w i t h o u t an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g . " B r a c k n e l l v. S t a t e , 883 So. 2d a t 728. R u l e 3 2 . 7 ( d ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., further provides: "If the court determines that the p e t i t i o n i s not s u f f i c i e n t l y s p e c i f i c , or i s p r e c l u d e d , or f a i l s t o s t a t e a c l a i m , o r t h a t no m a t e r i a l i s s u e o f f a c t or l a w e x i s t s w h i c h w o u l d e n t i t l e t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o 7 CR-08-0670 r e l i e f u n d e r t h i s r u l e and t h a t no p u r p o s e w o u l d be s e r v e d by any f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s , the c o u r t may e i t h e r d i s m i s s the p e t i t i o n or grant leave to f i l e an amended p e t i t i o n . L e a v e t o amend s h a l l be f r e e l y granted. Otherwise, the c o u r t s h a l l d i r e c t t h a t the 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 h e a r i n g . " In Moore v. State, A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t 502 So. 2d 819 (Ala. 1986), the stated: "'An e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on a coram n o b i s p e t i t i o n [now R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n ] i s r e q u i r e d o n l y i f t h e p e t i t i o n i s ' m e r i t o r i o u s on i t s f a c e . ' Ex p a r t e B o a t w r i g h t , 471 So. 2d 1257 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . A p e t i t i o n i s ' m e r i t o r i o u s on i t s f a c e ' o n l y i f i t c o n t a i n s a c l e a r and s p e c i f i c s t a t e m e n t o f t h e g r o u n d s upon which r e l i e f i s sought, i n c l u d i n g f u l l d i s c l o s u r e of t h e f a c t s r e l i e d upon (as o p p o s e d t o a g e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t c o n c e r n i n g t h e n a t u r e and e f f e c t o f t h o s e f a c t s ) s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r i s e n t i t l e d to r e l i e f i f those f a c t s are t r u e . Ex p a r t e B o a t w r i g h t , s u p r a ; Ex p a r t e C l i s b y , 501 So. 2d 483 ( A l a . 1986) ." 502 So. 2d a t More February 820. recently, 4, 2011] ___ in Bryant So. 3d ___ v. State, [Ms. ( A l a . Crim. CR-08-0405, App. 2011), we stated: " [ A ] c i r c u i t c o u r t may, i n some c i r c u m s t a n c e s , s u m m a r i l y d i s m i s s a p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n b a s e d on t h e m e r i t s o f the c l a i m s r a i s e d t h e r e i n . Rule 32.7(d), A l a . R.Crim. P., p r o v i d e s : "'If the c o u r t determines t h a t the p e t i t i o n i s not s u f f i c i e n t l y s p e c i f i c , or i s precluded, or f a i l s to s t a t e a c l a i m , or t h a t no m a t e r i a l i s s u e o f f a c t o r law 8 CR-08-0670 e x i s t s which would e n t i t l e the p e t i t i o n e r t o r e l i e f u n d e r t h i s r u l e and that no p u r p o s e w o u l d be s e r v e d by any further p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e c o u r t may e i t h e r d i s m i s s the p e t i t i o n or g r a n t l e a v e t o f i l e an amended p e t i t i o n . L e a v e t o amend s h a l l be f r e e l y g r a n t e d . Otherwise, the c o u r t s h a l l d i r e c t t h a t the p r o c e e d i n g s continue and set a date f o r hearing.' "'"Where a s i m p l e reading of the petition for p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f shows t h a t , a s s u m i n g e v e r y allegation of the petition t o be true, i t is o b v i o u s l y w i t h o u t m e r i t or i s p r e c l u d e d , the c i r c u i t court [may] summarily dismiss that petition.'" B i s h o p v. S t a t e , 608 So. 2d 345, 347-48 ( A l a . 1992) ( e m p h a s i s added) ( q u o t i n g B i s h o p v. S t a t e , 592 So. 2d 664, 667 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1991)(Bowen, J . , dissenting)). See also Hodges v. State, [Ms. CR-04-1226, M a r c h 23, 2007] So. 3d , (Ala. C r i m . App. 2007) (a p o s t c o n v i c t i o n c l a i m i s 'due to be summarily dismissed [when] i t is m e r i t l e s s on i t s f a c e ' ) . " M o r e o v e r , 'a j u d g e who p r e s i d e d o v e r t h e t r i a l o r o t h e r p r o c e e d i n g and o b s e r v e d t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e a t t o r n e y s a t the t r i a l or o t h e r p r o c e e d i n g need not hold a hearing on the effectiveness of those a t t o r n e y s b a s e d upon c o n d u c t t h a t he o b s e r v e d . ' Ex p a r t e H i l l , 591 So. 2d 462, 463 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . " ' " I n some c a s e s , r e c o l l e c t i o n o f t h e e v e n t s a t i s s u e b y t h e j u d g e who presided a t t h e o r i g i n a l c o n v i c t i o n may e n a b l e him summarily to dismiss a motion for postconviction relief." L i t t l e v. State, 426 So. 2d 5 2 7 , 529 ( A l a . C r . App. 1983). "If the circuit judge has personal knowledge of the a c t u a l f a c t s underlying the a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e p e t i t i o n , he may deny the petition without further proceedings so long as he states the 9 CR-08-0670 reasons f o rthe d e n i a l i n a w r i t t e n order." Sheats v. S t a t e , 556 So. 2d 1 0 9 4 , 1095 (Ala. C r . App. 1989).' "Ray v . S t a t e , 646 S o . 2 d 1 6 1 , 162 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 994) ( q u o t i n g N o r r i s v . S t a t e , 57 9 S o . 2 d 3 4 , 35 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1991) (Bowen, J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) ) . " ___ So. 3d a t ___ . court's Last, r u l i n g s made "'[w]hen reviewing i n a postconviction petition, circuit we may affirm a ruling f o r any r e a s o n . ' " L e e v. State, 44 So. 3d 1145, 1149 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 9 ) , quoting B u s h v. S t a t e , (Ala. i f i t i s correct a [Ms. CR-03-1902, May 29, 2009] So. 3d C r i m . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . W i t h t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s i n m i n d , we r e v i e w D a n i e l ' s Daniel first argues that because, deficient specific he asserts, findings Specifically, circuit of fact the c i r c u i t the court concerning each court's failed claims. order i s t o make of h i s claims. he a r g u e s t h a t we must remand t h i s case t o t h e c o u r t f o r t h a t c o u r t t o make w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s o f f a c t concerning each postconviction No , issue he raised i n h i s second amended petition. evidentiary hearing was c i r c u i t court summarily dismissed 10 held i n this case Daniel's p e t i t i o n . -- t h e "Because CR-08-0670 the trial not required claim." So. court d i d not hold t o make s p e c i f i c Beckworth v. S t a t e , 3d an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , , i t was f i n d i n g s o f f a c t s as t o e a c h [Ms. CR-07-0051, May 1, 2009] ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . "[R]ule 32.9(d), A l a . R. C r i m . P., r e q u i r e s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t o n l y i f an e v i d e n t i a r y hearing i sheld. dismissed." Findings are not required i f the p e t i t i o n i s Fowler C r i m . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . v. S t a t e , 890 So. 2d 1 1 0 1 , 1103 " R u l e 3 2 . 9 ( d ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., (Ala. requires t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o make s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s o f f a c t o n l y after an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g o r t h e r e c e i p t o f a f f i d a v i t s i n l i e u o f a hearing." Chambers v . S t a t e , 884 So. 2d 15, 19 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . See a l s o 2008). written The c i r c u i t Ex p a r t e court McCall, 30 So. 3d 400 d i d not e r r i n f a i l i n g f i n d i n g s of fact concerning Daniel's (Ala. t o make claims. II. Daniel next argues that the c i r c u i t court erred in f i n d i n g that h i s claims of i n e f f e c t i v e assistance of counsel were p r o c e d u r a l l y b a r r e d because t h e y c o u l d have been r a i s e d a t t r i a l b u t were n o t . no specific therefore, claim i tfails of This s e c t i o n of Daniel's b r i e f ineffective t o comply w i t h 11 assistance of the requirements asserts counsel; f o r the CR-08-0670 content of a b r i e f 28(a)(10), of a s e t out A l a . R. App. brief should appellant/petitioner the P., i n R u l e 28, provides contain with the contentions a u t h o r i t i e s , and F r a n k l i n v. State, 23 parts So. of 3d the 694 P. Rule of issues presented, reasons t h e r e f o r , w i t h c i t a t i o n s to the other App. t h a t an argument s e c t i o n "the respect A l a . R. record cases, relied ( A l a . C r i m . App. the and statutes, on." 2008), In we stated: "It is well settled that '[r]ecitation of a l l e g a t i o n s w i t h o u t c i t a t i o n t o any l e g a l a u t h o r i t y and w i t h o u t a d e q u a t e r e c i t a t i o n o f t h e f a c t s r e l i e d upon has b e e n deemed a w a i v e r o f t h e a r g u m e n t s l i s t e d . ' Hamm v. S t a t e , 913 So. 2d 460, 486 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . 'An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l c o n s i d e r o n l y t h o s e i s s u e s p r o p e r l y d e l i n e a t e d as s u c h and w i l l not s e a r c h out e r r o r s w h i c h have not been p r o p e r l y p r e s e r v e d or a s s i g n e d . This s t a n d a r d has been specifically a p p l i e d to b r i e f s containing general propositions devoid of delineation and s u p p o r t f r o m a u t h o r i t y o r a r g u m e n t . ' Ex p a r t e R i l e y , 464 So. 2d 92, 94 ( A l a . 1985) (citations omitted)." 23 So. The 3d a t 703. circuit court's order dismissing Daniel's petition states: " T h i s p e t i t i o n i s due t o be d i s m i s s e d p u r s u a n t t o Rule 32.2(a)(3) because i t r a i s e s grounds t h a t c o u l d have b e e n , b u t were n o t , r a i s e d o r a d d r e s s e d at t r i a l . L i k e w i s e , t h e p e t i t i o n i s due t o be d i s m i s s e d pursuant to Rule 32.2(a)(4) because i t r a i s e s g r o u n d s t h a t were r a i s e d o r a d d r e s s e d by 12 CR-08-0670 p e t i t i o n e r on d i r e c t a p p e a l t o t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l Appeals. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e p e t i t i o n i s due t o be d i s m i s s e d under Rule 3 2 . 2 ( a ) ( 5 ) , because i t r a i s e s g r o u n d s t h a t c o u l d have b e e n , b u t were n o t , r a i s e d on a p p e a l . A d d i t i o n a l l y , to the e x t e n t t h a t c e r t a i n o f p e t i t i o n e r ' s c l a i m s f a i l t o meet t h e s p e c i f i c i t y r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) , t h o s e c l a i m s a r e due t o be d i s m i s s e d . "[Daniel] claims i n this p e t i t i o n that his c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s were v i o l a t e d i n t h a t (1) he was d e n i e d t h e 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 a t trial; and (2) that he was denied effective a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l on h i s a p p e a l t o t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l Appeals. [Daniel's] claims of i n e f f e c t i v e a p p e l l a t e a s s i s t a n c e h i n g e i n l a r g e p a r t on the m e r i t s of h i s c l a i m s of i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e at t r i a l ; a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l c a n 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 , on a p p e a l , t o c h a l l e n g e t r i a l counsel's i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s i f t r i a l c o u n s e l was n o t i n e f f e c t i v e i n the f i r s t p l a c e . T o l b e r t v. S t a t e , 733 So. 2d 901, 903 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) . "This Court f i n d s t h a t [Daniel's] a l l e g a t i o n s of 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 e i t h e r do n o t meet the s p e c i f i c i t y requirements of Rule 32.6(b), r a i s e g r o u n d s t h a t were r a i s e d a t t r i a l i n v i o l a t i o n o f R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) , r a i s e g r o u n d s t h a t were r a i s e d by [ D a n i e l ] on d i r e c t a p p e a l i n v i o l a t i o n o f R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( a ) ( 4 ) , r a i s e g r o u n d s w h i c h c o u l d have b e e n b u t were n o t r a i s e d on d i r e c t a p p e a l i n v i o l a t i o n o f Rule 3 2 . 2 ( a ) ( 5 ) , are w i t h o u t m e r i t , or f a i l to s t a t e an i s s u e o f f a c t o r l a w . " [ D a n i e l ' s ] c l a i m s f a i l p r o c e d u r a l l y , and f a i l t o s t a t e a c l a i m o r d e m o n s t r a t e any m a t e r i a l i s s u e of law or f a c t t h a t would e n t i t l e p e t i t i o n e r t o r e l i e f ; t h u s , t h i s C o u r t f i n d s no n e c e s s i t y f o r an evidentiary hearing i n t h i s matter. Moreover, because t h i s Court p r e s i d e d over the t r i a l and [ D a n i e l ' s ] p o s t - t r i a l motion h e a r i n g s , under Alabama law the C o u r t i s not r e q u i r e d t o h o l d a h e a r i n g 13 CR-08-0670 r e g a r d i n g the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of [ D a n i e l ' s ] attorneys whose c o n d u c t t h e C o u r t o b s e r v e d f i r s t h a n d . Ex p a r t e H i l l , 591 So. 2d 462, 463 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . " B e c a u s e [ D a n i e l ] has f a i l e d to present any meritorious claim that trial counsel was i n e f f e c t i v e , t h i s C o u r t f i n d s no g r o u n d s i n t h e r e c o r d or i n t h i s p e t i t i o n t h a t demonstrate t h a t [Daniel's] claims of i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e are a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n m e r i t l e s s . To t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e o p i n i o n i s s u e d by t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s demonstrates a p p e l l a t e counsel's e f f e c t i v e n e s s . See D a n i e l v. S t a t e , 906 So. 2d 991 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). " (C. 54-56.) The on court Daniel's "'[W]hen stated alternative claims reviewing of a grounds f o r denying ineffective circuit postconviction petition, c o r r e c t f o r any reason.'" we court's may Lee assistance affirm v. S t a t e , of rulings a ruling 44 So. relief counsel. made in 3 a i f i t is 3d 1145, 1149 I t appears t h a t the s p e c i f i c c l a i m t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t may have c o n s i d e r e d t o be p r o c e d u r a l l y b a r r e d was t h e c l a i m t h a t c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g t o o b j e c t t o t h e l a c k of c o r r o b o r a t i o n of the a c c o m p l i c e ' s t e s t i m o n y . (R. 63.) T h i s C o u r t on d i r e c t a p p e a l s p e c i f i c a l l y h e l d t h a t G e o r g e J a c k s o n was n o t an a c c o m p l i c e as a m a t t e r o f l a w . We f u r t h e r h e l d t h a t , e v e n i f he was an a c c o m p l i c e , h i s t e s t i m o n y was s u f f i c i e n t l y c o r r o b o r a t e d t o s a t i s f y t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f § 12¬ 22-222, A l a . Code 1975. A l t h o u g h the s u b s t a n t i v e claim s u p p o r t i n g the 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 was addressed on direct appeal, this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not addressed and was not procedurally barred. 3 14 CR-08-0670 (Ala. Crim. 1902, May 2009). App. 29, 2009), 2009] quoting So. B u s h v. 3d State, , [Ms. CR-03- ( A l a . Crim. App. F o r t h e r e a s o n s s e t o u t i n t h i s o p i n i o n , we a f f i r m the c i r c u i t court's d i s m i s s a l of Daniel's p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n . III. Next, Daniel argues erred in d i s m i s s i n g h i s claims of i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of counsel at the p l e a d i n g stage. a t t h a t s t a g e was that the circuit court He a s s e r t s t h a t a l l he was "to provide adequate r e q u i r e d t o do n o t i c e o f what he was a l l e g i n g so t h a t t h e S t a t e c o u l d u n d e r s t a n d and r e s p o n d t o h i s allegations." ( D a n i e l ' s b r i e f , p. "A p e t i t i o n e r b e a r s no b u r d e n the p l e a d i n g 26, 2010] stage." So. 22.) of 'proving' h i s claims S c o t t v. S t a t e , 3d , 4 at [Ms. CR-06-2233, M a r c h ( A l a . Crim. App. 2010) . However, "The b u r d e n o f p l e a d i n g u n d e r R u l e 32.3 and R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) i s a h e a v y one. C o n c l u s i o n s u n s u p p o r t e d by s p e c i f i c f a c t s w i l l not s a t i s f y the requirements of R u l e 32.3 and R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) . The f u l l f a c t u a l b a s i s f o r t h e c l a i m must be i n c l u d e d i n t h e p e t i t i o n i t s e l f . I f , assuming every f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n i n a Rule 32 petition t o be true, a court cannot D a n i e l a p p e a r s t o be c i t i n g t h e s t a n d a r d f o r p l e a d i n g c i v i l c a s e s i n A l a b a m a and n o t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r p l e a d i n g c l a i m s i n a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . 4 15 CR-08-0670 determine whether the p e t i t i o n e r i s e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f , t h e p e t i t i o n e r has n o t s a t i s f i e d t h e burden o f p l e a d i n g u n d e r R u l e 32.3 a n d R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) . See B r a c k n e l l v. S t a t e , 883 So. 2d 724 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003)." Hyde, 950 So. 2d a t 356. For a petitioner to assistance of counsel performance was d e f i c i e n t ; and the d e f i c i e n t U.S. 668 he establish performance. must a show: (2) t h a t claim (1) of that he was ineffective counsel's p r e j u d i c e d by See S t r i c k l a n d v . W a s h i n g t o n , (1984). " J u d i c i a l 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 too tempting for a defendant to second-guess counsel's a s s i s t a n c e a f t e r c o n v i c t i o n or a d v e r s e s e n t e n c e , 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 p r o v e d u n s u c c e s s f u l , t o c o n c l u d e t h a t a particular a c t or omission of counsel was unreasonable. C f . E n g l e v . I s a a c , 456 U.S. 1 0 7 , 133-34 (1982). A fair assessment of attorney performance r e q u i r e s t h a t e v e r y e f f o r t be made t o eliminate the d i s t o r t i n g e f f e c t s of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel's c h a l l e n g e d c o n d u c t , 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 at the time. Because of the d i f f i c u l t i e s i n h e r e n t 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 the wide range of 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 t h e 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 c o n s i d e r e d sound t r i a l strategy.' See M i c h e l v . Louisiana, [350 U.S. 9 1 ] , a t 101 [ ( 1 9 5 5 ) ] . There are 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 c a s e . Even the b e s t c r i m i n a l defense 16 466 CR-08-0670 attorneys would t h e same w a y . " Strickland, United 4 66 States U.S. not defend at 689 Supreme C o u r t a particular (citations further client omitted). in As t h e stated: "[S]trategic choices made after thorough i n v e s t i g a t i o n 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 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 i n v e s t i g a t i o n are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 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 t o make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. I n any ineffectiveness case, a p a r t i c u l a r decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness i n a l l the circumstances, applying a heavy measure o f d e f e r e n c e t o c o u n s e l ' s judgments." Strickland, The assistance 466 U.S. a t 6 9 0 - 9 1 . requirements f o r pleading claims of ineffective o f c o u n s e l were s e t o u t i n Hyde: "To s u f f i c i e n t l y p l e a d an a l l e g a t i o n o f 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 , a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n e r n o t o n l y must ' i d e n t i f y t h e [ s p e c i f i c ] a c t s o r o m i s s i o n s o f c o u n s e l t h a t a r e a l l e g e d n o t t o have b e e n t h e r e s u l t of r e a s o n a b l e p r o f e s s i o n a l judgment,' 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, 690, 104 S . C t . 2052, 80 L . E d . 2 d 674 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , b u t a l s o must p l e a d s p e c i f i c f a c t s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he o r she was p r e j u d i c e d b y the a c t s o r o m i s s i o n s , i . e . , f a c t s i n d i c a t i n g 'that there i s a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y that, but f o r counsel's unprofessional errors, the r e s u l t of the p r o c e e d i n g w o u l d have b e e n d i f f e r e n t . ' 466 U.S. a t 694, 104 S . C t . 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. A b a r e allegation that prejudice occurred without s p e c i f i c 17 CR-08-0670 f a c t s i n d i c a t i n g how i s not s u f f i c i e n t . " 950 So. 2d a t 356. counsel is numerous a the petitioner general allegation other that So. 2d 1274, grounds, Ex consists subcategory ( A l a . C r i m . App. Jenkins, 972 at by So. an Coral 2004), 2d of of is s u f f i c i e n t l y pleaded." 1284 parte often Each subcategories. i n d e p e n d e n t c l a i m t h a t must be on prejudiced "[T]he 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 specific v. S t a t e , 900 was rev'd 159 (Ala. 2005). Daniel was Hughes and represent represented Danita Haskins. Daniels trial New attorneys counsel was on h i s m o t i o n f o r a new trial Katheree appointed and on to direct appeal. A. First, Daniel summarily dismissing ineffective against In merely failing witness. argues for his failing that the claim to circuit that his court trial investigate the erred counsel State's in was case him. his second pleaded to amended p o s t c o n v i c t i o n that interview his trial George counsel Jackson D a n i e l p l e a d e d the f o l l o w i n g : 18 was -- petition, Daniel ineffective the State's for main CR-08-0670 " T r i a l c o u n s e l d i d n o t i n t e r v i e w any o f t h e S t a t e ' s witnesses b e f o r e t r i a l , i n c l u d i n g the S t a t e ' s s t a r w i t n e s s , George J a c k s o n . Counsel's f a i l i n g i n t h i s r e g a r d was p a t e n t l y u n r e a s o n a b l e . The S t a t e ' s c a s e r e s t e d e n t i r e l y on Mr. Jackson's uncorroborated testimony, and trial counsel's apparent trial s t r a t e g y was t o a t t e m p t t o i m p l i c a t e Mr. J a c k s o n i n the s h o o t i n g s . T h e r e i s s i m p l y no justification for t r i a l counsel's f a i l u r e to a c t i v e l y i n v e s t i g a t e Mr. J a c k s o n ' s b a c k g r o u n d , and s e e k a l l a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n t o d i s c r e d i t Mr. J a c k s o n o r h i s s t o r y ( i n c l u d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m Mr. J a c k s o n h i m s e l f ) , before t r i a l . Mr. D a n i e l w o u l d n o t have b e e n f o u n d g u i l t y had Mr. J a c k s o n ' s c r e d i b i l i t y as a w i t n e s s and as an i n n o c e n t b y s t a n d e r b e e n c h a l l e n g e d . " (C. 147.) Assuming D a n i e l ' s a s s e r t i o n s are t r u e , p l e a d what e v i d e n c e have discredited entire defense double homicide. pleading full c o u n s e l c o u l d have u n c o v e r e d Jackson's have e v e n s p o k e n Daniel failed testimony or that to that would Jackson would to Daniel's attorneys, given that Daniel's was 5 that Jackson, and n o t he, Daniel f a i l e d to 32.3, facts the satisfy h i s burden of A l a . R. Crim. P., and 2d a t 356. A t a s t a t u s h e a r i n g on t h e p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n , 32 c o u n s e l c o n c e d e d t h a t J a c k s o n c o u l d have r e f u s e d t o with Daniel's attorneys. Rule talk R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. under Rule committed C r i m . P. 5 19 See Hyde, 950 So. CR-08-0670 In this counsel was "findings Daniel section of Daniel's ineffective of various merely for failing police pleaded brief, he a l s o officers." the following: that investigate to argues the In h i s p e t i t i o n , "Trial counsel also f a i l e d to adequately investigate the findings of the various p o l i c e o f f i c e r s c a l l e d as w i t n e s s e s f o r t h e S t a t e to those o f f i c e r s before client." failed findings petitioner] to gave testimony against h i s (C. 148.) Daniel whose they by t a l k i n g interview t o i d e n t i f y , b y name, any p o l i c e counsel claimed that State should have investigated. officer "[The c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g witnesses. However, i n t h i s section of [ t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s ] amended p e t i t i o n he f a i l e d t o i d e n t i f y one w i t n e s s b y name. C l e a r l y , [ t h e p e t i t i o n e r ] f a i l e d t o meet h i s burden of p l e a d i n g at 1158. i n regard Likewise, specificity to this Daniel claim." failed to L e e , 44 So. 3d comply with the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 32.6, A l a . R. C r i m . P. M o r e o v e r , as we s t a t e d i n R o b i t a i l l e v. S t a t e , 971 So. 2d 43 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 5 ) : "'[t]he f a i l u r e t o interview or take the depositions of the State's witnesses f o r impeachment p u r p o s e s i s n o t p r e j u d i c i a l p e r se. See M c C l e s k e y v . Kemp, 753 F.2d 877, 20 CR-08-0670 900 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1985) (en banc) ( h o l d i n g no p r e j u d i c e shown where a t t o r n e y f a i l e d t o i n t e r v i e w two of S t a t e ' s w i t n e s s e s and p o t e n t i a l d e f e n s e w i t n e s s e s ) ; B o y k i n s v. W a i n w r i g h t , 737 F.2d 1539, 1543 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1984) ( h o l d i n g no p r e j u d i c e shown where attorney f a i l e d to interview prosecution's e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , [470] U.S. [1059], 105 S.Ct. 1775, 84 L.Ed.2d 834 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ; Solomon v. Kemp, 735 F.2d 395, 402 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1984) ( h o l d i n g no prejudice shown where a t t o r n e y f a i l e d t o t a l k t o a l l o f t h e S t a t e ' s w i t n e s s e s and d i d n o t s e e k f u n d s f o r an i n v e s t i g a t o r ) , c e r t . denied, [469] U.S. [1181], 105 S.Ct. 940, 83 L.Ed.2d 952 (1985).'" 971 So. 636-37 2d a t 72, q u o t i n g A l d r i c h v. W a i n w r i g h t , 777 F.2d 630, was ineffective for few days his (11th C i r . 1985). Daniel failing to next argues meet with capital-murder Daniel counsel until a before trial. In D a n i e l ' s attorneys that s e c o n d amended p e t i t i o n that his f o r a m e e t i n g and did n o t meet w i t h him u n t i l t h r e e d a y s b e f o r e h i s t r i a l b e g a n . In support copies f a i l e d t o answer h i s r e q u e s t s he p l e a d e d of t h i s of letter, attached three dated contention Daniel l e t t e r s he wrote F e b r u a r y 21, Alabama R u l e s of attached to to h i s counsel. 2003, D a n i e l w r o t e : C o n d u c t and 21 request petition In the "Please per me first read ASAP. CR-08-0670 Request you materials request audit ASAP. you Haskins, Considering in Mr. forward she me also, the [Katheree] a copy of gross pray future." (C. The 232.) Hughes me seriousness I hope and with in of the letter, requested I t o Ms. this I h e a r f r o m you second the [Jr.], a l l enclosed representing a g a i n s t me 2003, r e a d s , compliance further [Danita] capital case. pending i n the dated charge very near February 28, in part: "Be a d v i s e d I have r e c e i v e d a l e t t e r p e r Mr. Hughes that i s t o t a l l y unacceptable as t o my previous l e t t e r o f F e b r u a r y 21, 2003, r e q u e s t i n g t h e two o f you p l e a s e p r o v i d e me w i t h a l l c o p i e s o f d i s c o v e r y e v i d e n c e t h a t you h a v e r e c e i v e d v i a t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a i n r e g a r d t o my c r i m i n a l c a s e p e n d i n g i n J e f f e r s o n County, Alabama." 6 The last letter, dated Alabama S t a t e Bar, Assuming Daniel's evidence or help how he was requested Daniel's petition nor he March 2, two 2003, exhibits are did c o u l d have p r o v i d e d p r e j u d i c e d by t h e i r a more t i m e l y manner. addressed bar-complaint assertions his and failure Daniel f a i l e d to the forms. true, in neither Daniel plead what to h i s attorneys or t o c o n s u l t w i t h him in to p l e a d the full facts T h i s l e t t e r c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t D a n i e l had r e c e i v e d some c o r r e s p o n d e n c e f r o m one o f h i s t r i a l a t t o r n e y s . 6 22 CR-08-0670 i n s u p p o r t o f t h i s c l a i m ; t h e r e f o r e , i t was p r o p e r l y d i s m i s s e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 32.6, A l a . R. Crim. P. Furthermore, "'We know o f no c a s e e s t a b l i s h i n g a minimum number o f m e e t i n g s b e t w e e n c o u n s e l and c l i e n t p r i o r t o t r i a l n e c e s s a r y t o p r e p a r e an a t t o r n e y 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 o f c o u n s e l . ' U n i t e d S t a t e s ex r e l . K l e b a v. M c G i n n i s , 796 F.2d 947, 954 ( 7 t h C i r . 1986). ' [ B ] r e v i t y of c o n s u l t a t i o n time between a d e f e n d a n t and h i s c o u n s e l , a l o n e , c a n n o t s u p p o r t a 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 c o u n s e l . Jones v. W a i n w r i g h t , 604 F.2d 414, 416 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 9 ) . ' Murray v. M a g g i o , 736 F.2d 279, 282 (5th C i r . 1984). " D a v i s v. S t a t e , Daniel ineffective with his 44 So. further 3d 1118, argues for failing family members to 1130 that conduct and ( A l a . C r i m . App. his trial counsel "meaningful friends. He 2009). was interviews" asserts that i f c o u n s e l h a d h a d more " m e a n i n g f u l i n t e r v i e w s " w i t h h i s m o t h e r and s i s t e r , c o u n s e l w o u l d have d i s c o v e r e d c h a r a c t e r e v i d e n c e t h a t s h o u l d have b e e n a d m i t t e d a t t h e g u i l t The State asserted the following in phase. i t s motion dismiss: "Daniel does n o t state ... what specific i n f o r m a t i o n h i s mother and/or s i s t e r c o u l d have p r o v i d e d t h a t would have b e e n m a t e r i a l o r r e l e v a n t t o any g u i l t p h a s e i s s u e s . 23 to CR-08-0670 II " D a n i e l was c h a r g e d w i t h i n t e n t i o n a l l y m u r d e r i n g two p e o p l e s i m p l y b e c a u s e one o f them u s e d a r a c i a l slur that Daniel, apparently, found o f f e n s i v e . D a n i e l does n o t e x p l a i n t o t h e C o u r t how i n j e c t i n g the i s s u e o f h i s c h a r a c t e r i n t o t h e g u i l t phase o f h i s t r i a l c o u l d have p o s s i b l y made a d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e outcome. In f a c t , i f h i s t r i a l counsels had o f f e r e d c h a r a c t e r evidence i n t h e g u i l t phase, i t w o u l d have o p e n e d t h e d o o r f o r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n t o i n t r o d u c e e v i d e n c e t h a t D a n i e l had been c o n v i c t e d o f a c r i m e i n v o l v i n g v i o l e n c e and, p o s s i b l y , o t h e r d r u g related felonies. There i s no reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y t h e outcome o f t h e g u i l t p h a s e w o u l d have b e e n d i f f e r e n t i f [ c o u n s e l ] h a d i n j e c t e d a t r a i t of Daniel's character." (C. 451-52.) Initially, we note that Daniel failed to plead s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r e v i d e n c e s h o u l d have b e e n p r e s e n t e d g u i l t p h a s e o r how he was p r e j u d i c e d b y c o u n s e l ' s present that evidence. what at the failure to T h i s c l a i m was c o r r e c t l y d i s m i s s e d f o r i t s f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e f u l l - f a c t p l e a d i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s of Rule 32.6(b), Also, during proceedings advisability phase. law A l a . R. C r i m . P. a status i n May 2007, hearing the c i r c u i t of introducing character We a g r e e . on the postconviction court questioned evidence a t the g u i l t As P r o f e s s o r Gamble w r i t e s : "One o f t h e c a r d i n a l p r i n c i p l e s i s that a person's character, 24 the o f t h e common good o r bad, CR-08-0670 o f f e r e d f o r the purpose of s p e c i f i e d o c c a s i o n , i s not h i s s p e c i f i c a c t s or course behind the r u l e i s t h a t e v i d e n c e w o u l d r e s u l t i n an the i s s u e s . s h o w i n g h i s c o n d u c t on a p r o v a b l e by e v i d e n c e o f of conduct. The p o l i c y the r e c e p t i o n of such i n t o l e r a b l e c o n f u s i o n of "The most commonly a p p l i e d f o r m o f t h e above p r i n c i p l e i s found i n the r u l e t h a t the c r i m i n a l l y a c c u s e d may n o t p r o v e h i s g o o d c h a r a c t e r , as t e n d i n g to show t h a t he d i d not commit t h e crime i n q u e s t i o n , by s h o w i n g p r i o r s p e c i f i c g o o d a c t s . It i s , of course, the r i g h t of the accused t o i n t r o d u c e h i s good c h a r a c t e r b u t o n l y by means o f general r e p u t a t i o n . Once t h e a c c u s e d i n t r o d u c e s e v i d e n c e o f his good c h a r a c t e r , the door i s opened f o r the prosecution to rebut with proof of his bad character. However, t h e p r o s e c u t i o n may n o t p r o v e the accused's bad character by showing prior specific acts. The p r o s e c u t i o n , l i k e t h e a c c u s e d , is relegated to proving character via general reputation. "The p r e s e n t p r i n c i p l e i s one t h a t has b e e n termed the 'general e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e of c h a r a c t e r . ' Collateral acts of a litigant are generally i n a d m i s s i b l e when o f f e r e d t o p r o v e t h a t t h e l i t i g a n t was o f a p a r t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r and a c t e d c o n s i s t e n t t h e r e w i t h on t h e o c c a s i o n i n q u e s t i o n . " C. Gamble, 2009). McElroy's "'Whether Alabama to Evidence introduce §26.01(4) character potentially open t h e t a c t i c s and s t r a t e g y . ' " S m i t h v. S t a t e , 288 S.E.2d 629, 636 655, 659, 581 (6th evidence d o o r f o r impeachment i s c l e a r l y (2010), Ga. q u o t i n g W a s h i n g t o n v. S.E.2d 518 (2003). 25 Daniel had 348, one ed. and of 354, 703 S t a t e , 276 Ga. an extensive CR-08-0670 criminal record. I f c o u n s e l had p r e s e n t e d at the g u i l t phase, the to S t a t e w o u l d have had rebut that evidence with proof T h e r e was no character m a t e r i a l i s s u e of the opportunity of D a n i e l ' s bad fact or law character. t h a t would e n t i t l e d D a n i e l t o r e l i e f ; t h e r e f o r e , t h i s c l a i m was dismissed. See Rule 32.7(d), A l a . R. Crim. evidence 7 have correctly P. D. D a n i e l n e x t a s s e r t s t h a t h i s c o u n s e l was failing to interview "'[T]he failure se.'" Daniel Donald failing to F.2d 971 630, specifically i n t e r v i e w the So. 2d 636-37 a t 72, questions Counsel, interview Donald for witnesses. depositions of the prejudicial quoting Aldrich v. (11th C i r . 1985). following potential Bass. the defense f o r impeachment p u r p o s e s i s n o t Robitaille, W a i n w r i g h t , 777 potential t o i n t e r v i e w or take State's witnesses per certain ineffective he Bass counsel's failure to ineffective for witnesses: says, was because Bass could have " ' I n a c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n , i t i s g e n e r a l l y agreed that the s t a t e i s not allowed to i n t r o d u c e evidence of the a c c u s e d ' s b a d c h a r a c t e r u n t i l t h e a c c u s e d has f i r s t e n t e r e d e v i d e n c e o f h i s g o o d c h a r a c t e r . ' " Dockey v. S t a t e , 659 So. 2d 219, 220-21 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1994), q u o t i n g C. Gamble, M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e §27.01(1) ( 4 t h ed. 1 9 9 1 ) . See a l s o R u l e 404, A l a . R. E v i d . 7 26 CR-08-0670 t e s t i f i e d t h a t J a c k s o n had and that Daniel's witness. before he aimed trial the gun on t h e n i g h t o f t h e the counsel victims. called B a s s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had 8 the murders. T h e r e was that e n t i t l e d See R u l e 3 2 . 7 ( d ) , A l a . R. Brenda interviewed had at shows t h a t law they a gun King Daniel and Jackson's information cross-examining no a of defense gun fact to t h i s or claim. P. King. parents, the Jackson. as seen J a c k s o n w i t h a i n regard Haywood that Bass record m a t e r i a l i s s u e of to r e l i e f Crim. The murders would Counsel Kings, have should because assisted he have says, counsel in D a n i e l p l e a d e d the f o l l o w i n g : "According to information i n t r i a l counsel's p o s s e s s i o n , B r e n d a K i n g , Mr. J a c k s o n ' s m o t h e r , and Haywood King, Mr. Jackson's stepfather, were i n s t r u m e n t a l i n c a u s i n g Mr. J a c k s o n t o r e p o r t t h e m u r d e r s t o t h e p o l i c e t h e day a f t e r t h e y o c c u r r e d , and i m p l i c a t e Mr. D a n i e l i n t h e c r i m e . Because the K i n g s saw and s p o k e t o Mr. J a c k s o n s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e m u r d e r s and b e f o r e Mr. J a c k s o n c o n t a c t e d t h e p o l i c e , the f a i l u r e of t r i a l counsel to attempt to o b t a i n any i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m them c o n c e r n i n g Mr. J a c k s o n ' s s t a t e o f m i n d , what c l o t h e s he was w e a r i n g , w h e t h e r his c l o t h e s were b l o o d s t a i n e d , t h e s t a t e m e n t he made b e f o r e t h e y c o n v i n c e d him t o go t o t h e p o l i c e , t h e i r k n o w l e d g e o f t h e i n c i d e n t , o r what Mr. J a c k s o n t o l d them a b o u t h i s and Mr. D a n i e l ' s r o l e i n t h e We have 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 D a n i e l ' s d i r e c t appeal of h i s c a p i t a l - m u r d e r c o n v i c t i o n . See H u l l v. S t a t e , 607 So. 2d 369, 371 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1992) . 8 27 CR-08-0670 shootings c o n s t i t u t e d i n e f f e c t i v e assistance. At the v e r y l e a s t , t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n would have a s s i s t e d t r i a l counsel i n conducting a meaningful crosse x a m i n a t i o n o f Mr. J a c k s o n . " (C. 148-49.) First, been Daniel willing Daniel's Nor to talk d e f e n s e was d i d Daniel failure f a i l e d to plead that plead t o speak w i t h specificity with how t h a t t h e K i n g s would have Daniel's their he attorneys, son committed was the Kings. prejudiced Daniel given the murders. by counsel's f a i l e d t o meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 32.6, A l a . R. C r i m . Moreover, the only information that Daniel f a i l e d t o o b t a i n was t h a t t h e K i n g s c o n v i n c e d pleaded P. counsel J a c k s o n t o go t o p o l i c e and t h a t t h e p o l i c e p a i d f o r J a c k s o n t o s t a y i n a h o t e l after he testimony the reported was p r e s e n t e d police. order the In f a c t , murders. The that the Kings convinced the c i r c u i t court s t a t e d that the Kings convinced go t o t h e p o l i c e about record the double shows that J a c k s o n t o go i n i t s sentencing their son, Jackson, t o homicide. Also, Daniel c a l l e d Sgt. C y n t h i a E c h o l s of t h e Birmingham P o l i c e Department as a d e f e n s e w i t n e s s . and She t e s t i f i e d t h a t J a c k s o n was afraid t h a t he a s k e d t h e p o l i c e t o p r o t e c t h i m f r o m D a n i e l . r e c o r d shows t h a t c o u n s e l ' s cross-examination 28 The o f J a c k s o n was CR-08-0670 extensive. Counsel inconsistencies police day. have thoroughly in his trial testimony a n d why he d i d n o t r e p o r t T h e r e was no m a t e r i a l entitled Daniel cross-examined him and h i s statement t o t h e murders u n t i l the next i s s u e or f a c t or law t h a t to relief on about this claim. would See Rule 3 2 . 7 ( d ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P. Ashley Contorno. C o n t o r n o b e c a u s e , he s a y s , shootings Counsel should have Jackson l i v e d with a n d c o u l d have t e s t i f i e d interviewed her a f t e r the that " J a c k s o n had a s h o r t temper and had o f t e n b r a g g e d t o h e r t h a t he was a member o f a gang. He l e f t S o u t h C a r o l i n a n o t s i m p l y b e c a u s e h i s '[h]ome s c e n e was j u s t r o u g h ' , b u t b e c a u s e h i s f a m i l y members c a u g h t him s t e a l i n g t o support h i s drug h a b i t . Ms. C o n t o r n o a l s o s t a t e d t h a t she b e l i e v e d J a c k s o n h a d a juvenile record." (C. 150.) In i t s motion to dismiss, the State correctly asserted the f o l l o w i n g : "None o f t h e ' i n f o r m a t i o n ' l i s t e d above w o u l d have b e e n a d m i s s i b l e t o i m p e a c h J a c k s o n ' s trial testimony. T e s t i m o n y t h a t J a c k s o n had a temper o r t h a t he h a d s t o l e n f r o m members o f h i s f a m i l y w o u l d be e x c l u d e d u n d e r R u l e 608, A l a . R. E v i d . F u r t h e r , any t e s t i m o n y t h a t J a c k s o n s a i d he was a gang member o r t h a t he h a d a j u v e n i l e r e c o r d w o u l d n o t have b e e n a d m i s s i b l e f o r impeachment. See R u l e s 608(a) a n d 6 0 9 ( d ) , A l a . R. E v i d . D a n i e l c a n n o t d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t 29 CR-08-0670 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 f a i l i n g t o present inadmissible evidence." (C. for 457-58.) The e v i d e n c e c i t e d above t h a t D a n i e l a s s e r t s c o u n s e l was ineffective guilt phase. for f a i l i n g t o present Rule 609(a), was n o t a d m i s s i b l e A l a . R. E v i d . , at the provides: Evidence of "(a) Opinion a n d Rep u t a t i o n Character. The c r e d i b i l i t y o f a w i t n e s s may be a t t a c k e d o r s u p p o r t e d by evidence i n t h e form o f opinion or reputation, but subject t o these limitations: (1) t h e e v i d e n c e may r e f e r o n l y t o c h a r a c t e r f o r t r u t h f u l n e s s o r u n t r u t h f u l n e s s , and (2) e v i d e n c e o f t r u t h f u l c h a r a c t e r i s a d m i s s i b l e only after the character of the witness f o r truthfulness has been attacked by o p i n i o n o r reputation evidence or otherwise." R u l e 6 0 9 ( d ) , A l a . R. E v i d . , s t a t e s : " E v i d e n c e o f j u v e n i l e o r youthful rule." offender adjudication i s not admissible under this See a l s o Ex p a r t e Thomas, 625 So. 2 d 1156 ( A l a . 1993) ( a d m i s s i b l e o f e v i d e n c e t h a t d e f e n d a n t was member o f gang was reversible error). for failing State, t o present 107 S.W.3d Barnum v . S t a t e , Daniel "'Counsel w i l l n o t be deemed inadmissible 285, 294 ineffective evidence.'" (Mo. App. W.D. 2003), 52 S.W.3d 604, 608 (Mo. App. W.D. further pleaded i n h i s Rule Kuehne v . quoting 2001). 32 p e t i t i o n that C o n t o r n o c o u l d have t e s t i f i e d t h a t J a c k s o n "went b a c k i n t o t h e 30 CR-08-0670 v i c t i m s ' s apartment and removed e v i d e n c e o f h i s p r e s e n c e the (C. 150.) crime scene." trial Jackson t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t go b a c k Contorno's trial testimony. Daniel at Daniel's i n t o the apartment; a l l e g e d s t a t e m e n t was therefore, inconsistent with failed to plead from how Jackson's Contorno's o t h e r w i s e i n a d m i s s i b l e s t a t e m e n t w o u l d have b e e n a d m i s s i b l e t o i m p e a c h J a c k s o n ' s t e s t i m o n y o r what J a c k s o n removed o r c h a n g e d at the crime scene. support t h i s 32.6, A l a . R. c l a i m ; t h e r e f o r e , he f a i l e d t o c o m p l y Crim. Tim S w i f t . Swift, D a n i e l f a i l e d to p l e a d the f u l l with C o u n s e l , he a c l e r k at a convenience s a y s , s h o u l d have interviewed s t o r e where D a n i e l purchased D a n i e l pleaded the following regard to this witness: "Tim Swift was identified i n the S t a t e ' s p r e t r i a l d i s c l o s u r e s as t h e c l e r k a t t h e A c c u m a r t who s o l d b e e r t o Mr. D a n i e l and Mr. J a c k s o n b e f o r e the two men went t o t h e v i c t i m s ' a p a r t m e n t . At the very least, Mr. Swift could have provided i n f o r m a t i o n about the b e h a v i o r of Messrs. Jackson and D a n i e l i n t h e h o u r s b e f o r e t h e c r i m e , i n c l u d i n g whether Mr. Jackson appeared intoxicated or agitated." (C. Rule P. b e e r on t h e day o f t h e m u r d e r s . in facts to 151.) 31 CR-08-0670 Daniel that failed to plead that S w i f t was i n p o s s e s s i o n favorable pleaded information, conclusions therefore, to Swift or o f any i n f o r m a t i o n , concerning without he f a i l e d he h a d s p o k e n Daniel or Jackson. any s p e c i f i c t o comply w i t h much less Daniel factual support; the f u l l - f a c t pleading r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P. K.V. H i l l . information D a n i e l a s s e r t e d t h a t H i l l c o u l d have that was essential examination of Jackson. f o r the e f f e c t i v e Specifically, he a s s e r t s c o u l d have i n f o r m e d c o u n s e l that i l l e g a l Jackson's t h e murder, apartment after J a c k s o n was i n v o l v e d i n t h e m u r d e r s , not search Daniel's vehicle provided until cross- that Hill d r u g s were f o u n d i n that Hill thought and t h a t t h e p o l i c e d i d s i x days after the shootings. The State asserted the following i n i t s motion dismiss: " D a n i e l appears t o ignore the f a c t t h a t H i l l t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t h a t he d i d n o t n o t i c e a n y t h i n g d i f f e r e n t a b o u t D a n i e l when he saw h i m t h e n i g h t o f the murders. A l s o , Jackson t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l t h a t H i l l threw him out o f h i s apartment t h e day a f t e r t h e m u r d e r s b e c a u s e H i l l t h o u g h t t h a t J a c k s o n was involved. As f a r as D a n i e l ' s c a r i s c o n c e r n e d , testimony a t t r i a l from other w i t n e s s e s , p r o v e d t h a t the Birmingham P o l i c e Department d i d n o t i m m e d i a t e l y s e i z e D a n i e l ' s c a r . The r e c o r d showed t h a t D a n i e l ' s 32 to CR-08-0670 c a r was s e i z e d on O c t o b e r 1, 2001, a b o u t f o u r d a y s a f t e r t h e m u r d e r s , and t h a t i t was not searched u n t i l O c t o b e r 4, 2 0 0 1 . " (C. 460-61.) The record testified time of supports the State's t h a t D a n i e l w o r k e d f o r H i l l ' s son the murders c l e a n i n g the murders, Daniel the p a i n t i n g apartments i n and called the part-time He s a i d t h a t on t h e him b e c a u s e , he s a i d , he had no f o o d . and asked f o r an that evening. The night advance H i l l further testified D a n i e l came t o h i s h o u s e sometime b e t w e e n 10:30 p.m. Hill at c o m p l e x where t h e m u r d e r s o c c u r r e d . of assertions. f o l l o w i n g then p.m. and that 11:30 occurred: " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : When he g o t t h e r e , d i d you notice a n y t h i n g d i f f e r e n t about h i s temperament, h i s f a c i a l -- o r t h e way he a c t e d , h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ? "[Hill]: (Trial No." record, p. examination that: it and Police not he Also, "K.V. wouldn't Hill rent to Jackson s a i d I had me." testimony also established seized omitted 310.) until evidence allegation that four was testified record, Daniel's days a f t e r the murders. introduced Daniel's i s refuted by 33 the at cross- s o m e t h i n g t o do (Trial that on record fails p. with 262.) vehicle The alleged trial. to was state "An a CR-08-0670 c l a i m a n d does n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t a m a t e r i a l i s s u e o f f a c t o r l a w e x i s t s as r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 3d a t 32.7(d)." Beckworth, So. . Daniel's pleaded coworkers. In regard to this claim, Daniel the following: "In a d d i t i o n t o t h e s e w i t n e s s e s , t r i a l c o u n s e l c o u l d a n d s h o u l d have made e f f o r t s t o i n t e r v i e w Mr. Jackson's c o - w o r k e r s t o d e t e r m i n e whether any o f them h a d e v e r s e e n Mr. J a c k s o n w e a r i n g t h e s n e a k e r s that contained the v i c t i m ' s blood. However, t r i a l counsel n e v e r even a t t e m p t e d to contact these i n d i v i d u a l s , much l e s s p u t them on t h e s t a n d . " (C. 153.) Daniel counsel failed should requires evidence that have b y name, a n y c o w o r k e r whom consulted. the p e t i t i o n e r Specificity s t a t e both i n pleading t h e name t h a t was i n t h e w i t n e s s e s ' s p o s s e s s i o n t h a t should have Daniel failed 32.6, to identify, discovered, but f o r counsel's t o meet t h e s p e c i f i c i t y A l a . R. C r i m . and t h e counsel ineffectiveness. requirements of Rule P. E. Daniel failing next t o review argues that the State's counsel was evidence. a s s e r t s t h a t c o u n s e l s h o u l d have r e v i e w e d 34 ineffective for Specifically, he S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t s 10 CR-08-0670 and 11 -- p h o t o g r a p h s o f shoe p r i n t s f o u n d a t t h e m u r d e r s c e n e -- and been p r e p a r e d Daniel pleaded to object to t h e i r admission. the f o l l o w i n g : " S t a t e ' s e x h i b i t s 10 and 11 a r e p h o t o g r a p h s o f the f o o t p r i n t s found at the scene of the crime. On e a c h , t h e n o t a t i o n 'matches d e f e n d a n t ' s s h o e ' i s written. I n t r o d u c t i o n of t h i s evidence without o b j e c t i o n was h i g h l y p r e j u d i c i a l t o Mr. D a n i e l . At t r i a l , t h e t e s t i m o n y o f Mr. J a c k s o n was t h e S t a t e ' s o n l y e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e s h o e s i n t h e t r u n k o f Mr. D a n i e l ' s c a r b e l o n g e d t o Mr. D a n i e l and were on h i s f e e t on t h e e v e n i n g o f S e p t e m b e r 26, 2001. In f a c t , t h e r e p o r t p r e p a r e d by J o h n M. Case o f t h e A l a b a m a Department of F o r e n s i c S c i e n c e s e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e s t h a t , w h i l e c o r r e s p o n d i n g i n s i z e and shape t o t h e footprints at the crime scene, there was ' [ i ] n s u f f i c i e n t c l a r i t y o f t h e [shoe] impressions and lack of observable wear and random characteristics precluded a more definite determination.' Thus, t h e S t a t e d i d n o t and c o u l d n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h o s e s h o e s a c t u a l l y made t h e f o o t p r i n t s found at the crime scene. Accordingly, t h e n o t a t i o n 'matches d e f e n d a n t ' s s h o e s ' was w i t h o u t any b a s i s i n f a c t , was h i g h l y p r e j u d i c i a l t o Mr. D a n i e l and n e v e r s h o u l d have b e e n s e e n by t h e j u r y . "Had t r i a l c o u n s e l r e v i e w e d t h e S t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e t r i a l , t h e y a l s o w o u l d have b e e n b e t t e r e q u i p p e d t o examine the w i t n e s s e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o the S t a t e ' s p h y s i c a l evidence. T h e i r f a i l u r e t o do so a l s o c o n s t i t u t e s i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e . " (C. 154-55.) The to the r e c o r d shows t h a t c o u n s e l d i d make s e v e r a l o b j e c t i o n s photographs. Counsel p h o t o g r a p h s were i n t r o d u c e d by 35 the first objected prosecutor when i n bulk. the The CR-08-0670 circuit court prosecutor and sustained t h a t he specifically that objection w o u l d have t o go identify Counsel also objected and failed to prove a proper foundation photographs. T h i s o b j e c t i o n was 345.) Logan, Jay a State (Trial f o r the overruled. evidence as a source scene. of the p. 338¬ prosecutor admission of the (Trial record, p. technician, testified c a r c o u l d n o t be shoe p r i n t s r e c o v e r e d On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , the the photograph record, argued that t h a t the shoes r e c o v e r e d from D a n i e l ' s out informed through each e a c h one. 39.) and at ruled the murder L o g a n a d m i t t e d t h a t he c o u l d not c o n c l u s i v e l y say whether the shoes r e c o v e r e d from D a n i e l ' s car were t h e s o u r c e o f t h e shoe p r i n t s a t t h e m u r d e r s c e n e . the most d a m a g i n g e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g the shoe p r i n t s f o u n d a t t h e m u r d e r s c e n e b u t shoes recovered matched the from victims's blood s e i z e d from D a n i e l ' s he owned one when he and apartment. car had were t h e the blood the facts that the on them same s i z e as J a c k s o n had p a i r o f s h o e s and t h a t he was not testified that shoes that w e a r i n g t h o s e shoes t a l k e d to the p o l i c e . Daniel made Daniel's s h o e s was Also, that f a i l e d t o p l e a d what o b j e c t i o n c o u n s e l would have resulted 36 in the shoe c o u l d have prints being CR-08-0670 excluded. In postconviction believed not petition that would not the shoe at the the circuit prints status were hearing on the that i t that i t " [ T ] r i a l counsel is court stated admissible have e x c l u d e d them a t t r i a l . ineffective denied." fact, and 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 B o y d v. S t a t e , 746 So. 2d 364, 402 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). Also, for failing that said: his as burden claim. He to that according to Daniel's to object claim that counsel t o t h e w r i t t e n n o t e on "matches d e f e n d a n t ' s s h o e " ; D a n i e l of pleading sufficient facts in was ineffective each photograph f a i l e d t o meet regard to this f a i l e d t o p l e a d what o b j e c t i o n c o u l d have b e e n made evidence. Thus, t h i s c l a i m was t o R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. Crim. correctly dismissed P. F. D a n i e l n e x t a r g u e s t h a t he s u f f i c i e n t l y p l e a d e d h i s c l a i m that counsel was s e r v i c e s of v a r i o u s ineffective for failing to retain experts. " [ T ] h e mere f a c t a d e f e n d a n t can f i n d , y e a r s a f t e r t h e f a c t , a m e n t a l h e a l t h e x p e r t who w i l l t e s t i f y f a v o r a b l y f o r him does n o t d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t trial c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g t o p r o d u c e t h a t expert at t r i a l . See, e.g., H o r s l e y v. A l a b a m a , 45 F.3d 1486, 1495 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1995) ('That e x p e r t s were 37 the CR-08-0670 f o u n d who w o u l d t e s t i f y f a v o r a b l y y e a r s l a t e r i s irrelevant.'); E l l e d g e v. Dugger, 823 F.2d 1439 (11th C i r . 1987)." Davis v. S i n g l e t a r y , 119 F.3d 1471, Daniel challenges counsel's 1475 (11th C i r . 1997). f a i l u r e to h i r e the f o l l o w i n g experts: Mental-health ineffective expert. Daniel f o r f a i l i n g to present health expert who would t e s t i f y asserts that the testimony during the counsel of a mental- guilt phase t h e r e a s o n D a n i e l d i d n o t i m p l i c a t e J a c k s o n as t h e s h o o t e r that he silent Rule had when he 32 conditioned witnessed petition, presented social been Daniel the testimony from an early criminal activity. asserted that was age to In h i s counsel that was remain amended should have of Martha L o r i n g , a l i c e n s e d c e r t i f i e d worker. The State asserted the following in its motion dismiss: " [ E ] v e n i f D a n i e l c o u l d somehow d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t [ M a r t h a ] L o r i n g was a v a i l a b l e i n M a r c h 2003, D a n i e l does n o t s t a t e i n h i s s e c o n d amended R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n u n d e r what l e g a l t h e o r y L o r i n g ' s t e s t i m o n y w o u l d have b e e n a d m i s s i b l e d u r i n g t h e g u i l t p h a s e o f his t r i a l . A c c o r d i n g to her c u r r i c u l u m vita[e], Loring i s a sociologist, not a p s y c h o l o g i s t or psychiatrist. D a n i e l f a i l s to demonstrate L o r i n g w o u l d have b e e n q u a l i f i e d to t e s t i f y during the g u i l t phase of t r i a l about her s u b j e c t i v e o p i n i o n s 38 to CR-08-0670 a b o u t what e f f e c t D a n i e l ' s his l a t e r years." (C. childhood had on him 467.) We agree w i t h the S t a t e . legal basis admissible Daniel's a at D a n i e l f a i l e d t o p l e a d on sociologist's testimony the guilt phase of of mind as why state to would Daniel's he trial failed to p o l i c e about Jackson's involvement i n the murders. Gaddy v. S t a t e , 952 we affirmed would So. a circuit have b e e n 2d 1149, court's admissible g u i l t y by m e n t a l d i s e a s e Moreover, did in not tell homicides was at trial the or he only have to to that inform a testimony claim testified Jackson promised that was Jackson the " d e f e n d a n t ' s own 830 So. Not 2d 109, only 113 did ( F l a . D i s t . C t . App. r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 32.6, not involved he would in not he the tell. services w o u l d have b e e n i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h v e r s i o n of events." Daniel of reason Counsel i s not i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g t o secure the the 2006), defect. that o f an e x p e r t whose t e s t i m o n y the In f a c t i n similar support been explain ( A l a . C r i m . App. ruling Daniel police that 1163 what fail A l a . R. 39 to Skrandel State, 2002). satisfy Crim. v. P., the but pleading also there CR-08-0670 was no m a t e r i a l i s s u e o r f a c t o r l a w t h a t w o u l d e n t i t l e him t o relief i n regard to t h i s claim. Police-procedures expert. amended R u l e failing effect 32 petition to present the that the that Daniel pleaded i n h i s c o u n s e l was ineffective testimony of a p o l i c e police investigation of officer Kenneth in Florida, a retired prepared was case He Katsaris, to t e s t i f y for expert to the consistent with accepted p o l i c e p r a c t i c e s . a s s e r t e d t h a t W. second the was not specifically law-enforcement concerning d e f e c t s i n the p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the double the homicide. I n i t i a l l y , D a n i e l f a i l e d to p l e a d t h a t the F l o r i d a expert was familiar available plead the w i t h Alabama p o l i c e to t e s t i f y full facts 3 2 . 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. Moreover, 32 p e t i t i o n , Crim. i n Alabama i n support practices i n 2003. of this and that he was Daniel failed claim. See to Rule P. i n t h e S t a t e ' s answer t o D a n i e l ' s amended R u l e i t asserted: "Under t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s o f D a n i e l ' s c a s e , 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 an e x p e r t i n p o l i c e procedures would have benefitted the defense. Daniel's trial counsel vigorously a t t a c k e d the State's i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h i s case. During h i s c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n of Jay Logan, the l e a d e v i d e n c e t e c h n i c i a n i n t h e c a s e , Mr. [ K a t h e r e e ] Hughes p r o v e d t h a t no e v i d e n c e was t a k e n f r o m J a c k s o n ' s a p a r t m e n t 40 CR-08-0670 and t h a t Logan n e v e r c o n s i d e r e d J a c k s o n as a s u s p e c t in t h e murder. Hughes a l s o q u e s t i o n e d Logan e x t e n s i v e l y a b o u t t h e s e a r c h o f D a n i e l ' s c a r . Logan a l s o c o n c e d e d on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n t h a t J a c k s o n ' s a p a r t m e n t was n e v e r t e s t e d f o r b l o o d and t h a t McCulloch's purse was n o t s e i z e d o r o t h e r w i s e processed f o r evidence. I n f a c t , Logan a d m i t t e d t h a t M c C u l l o c h ' s p u r s e was r e t u r n e d t o h e r f a m i l y . T r i a l c o u n s e l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t D a n i e l ' s c a r [was] l e f t unattended from t h e time o f t h e murders u n t i l October 1, 2 0 0 1 , when i t was s e i z e d by law enforcement. F u r t h e r , Hughes a r g u e d d u r i n g h i s g u i l t phase c l o s i n g t o t h e j u r y t h a t t h e focus o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n was on D a n i e l b e c a u s e he h a d p r i o r s for s e l l i n g drugs. Hughes v i g o r o u s l y a r g u e d d u r i n g his guilt phase closing that the State's i n v e s t i g a t i o n was c o n d u c t e d t o c o n f o r m t o J a c k s o n ' s v e r s i o n o f e v e n t s . Hughes a n d [ D a n i t a ] H a s k i n s a l s o showed t h a t t h e S t a t e d i d n o t p u r s u e a w i t n e s s t h a t t e s t i f i e d J a c k s o n p o s s e s s e d a gun weeks b e f o r e t h e murders. " D a n i e l c a n n o t d e m o n s t r a t e he was p r e j u d i c e d b e c a u s e Mr. Hughes a n d Ms. H a s k i n s d i d n o t r e q u e s t f u n d s f o r an ' e x p e r t ' i n p o l i c e p r o c e d u r e s t o a t t a c k the Birmingham P o l i c e Department's i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h i s c a s e b e c a u s e t h e y were a b l e t o do t h e same t h i n g w i t h o u t one." (C. 473-74.) Our review of the r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t i n D a n i e l ' s case¬ in-chief, counsel Birmingham also Police called Department testified t h a t a t the time detective and t h a t Daniel's case. to testify. Echols Sgt. o f t h e m u r d e r she was a she was Counsel Sgt. Cynthia the l e a d homicide questioned 41 of the Echols homicide d e t e c t i v e on Sgt. Echols about t h e CR-08-0670 investigation. police Counsel used every investigation examination This of the and State's claim presented t h a t w o u l d have e n t i t l e d Ala. R. Crim. and conducted a to attack thorough the cross- forensic expert. no material Daniel to issue relief. of See fact or Rule law 32.7, P. Forensic opportunity should have counter the regard DNA experts. r e t a i n e d the State's to these Daniel services of f o r e n s i c expert claims, Daniel pleaded asserts that a and counsel f o r e n s i c expert a DNA expert. the f o l l o w i n g : " T r i a l c o u n s e l c o u l d and s h o u l d have a s k e d f o r funds to procure the a s s i s t a n c e of a f o r e n s i c expert. At trial, the State introduced the t e s t i m o n y o f i t s own f o r e n s i c e x p e r t t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t Mr. D a n i e l was p r e s e n t a t t h e c r i m e s c e n e on t h e day i n q u e s t i o n e v e n t h o u g h Mr. D a n i e l n e v e r d e n i e d t h a t he was p r e s e n t i n t h e v i c t i m ' s a p a r t m e n t on t h a t n i g h t . However, i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e S t a t e f o u n d some v a l u e t o e s t a b l i s h i n g Mr. Daniel's presence through f o r e n s i c evidence. Whatever v a l u e t h e r e was t o t h e S t a t e , t h e r e was e q u a l v a l u e t o Mr. D a n i e l i n t e r m s o f s h o w i n g Mr. J a c k s o n ' s p r e s e n c e t h e r e as w e l l . " "A DNA e x p e r t c o u l d have t e s t e d t h e s h o e s f o r h a i r s a m p l e s and s k i n f r a g m e n t s and may w e l l have been a b l e t o g i v e t e s t i m o n y t h a t the b l o o d y shoes were worn by Mr. J a c k s o n . Such i n f o r m a t i o n w o u l d have p r o v e n i n v a l u a b l e i n t e r m s o f i m p e a c h i n g Mr. J a c k s o n ' s t e s t i m o n y and u n d e r m i n i n g h i s c r e d i b i l i t y . 42 to In CR-08-0670 T r i a l c o u n s e l ' s f a i l u r e t o p r o c u r e a DNA e x p e r t was extremely prejudicial, as i t may no l o n g e r be p o s s i b l e t o c o n d u c t r e l i a b l e t e s t i n g on t h e s n e a k e r s today." (C. 170-71.) D a n i e l f a i l e d t o i d e n t i f y , b y name, any f o r e n s i c o r DNA e x p e r t who c o u l d h a v e t e s t i f i e d the content o f t h e e x p e r t ' s expected Daniel failed requirements State, to of Rule comply with at Daniel's t r i a l or testimony. the Accordingly, full-fact 3 2 . 6 , A l a . R. C r i m . P. pleading See McNabb v . 991 So. 3d 313 ( A l a . Crim. App. 2007) c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e for failing to retain (claim that an e x p e r t n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y p l e a d e d b e c a u s e e x p e r t was n o t i d e n t i f i e d ) ; Woods v. State, other 957 So. 2d 492 grounds, ineffective 957 So. ( A l a . Crim. 2d 533 assistance of counsel App. 2 0 0 4 ) , ( A l a . 2006) rev'd on (claim of not s u f f i c i e n t l y pleaded b e c a u s e Woods f a i l e d t o i d e n t i f y an e x p e r t b y name). Also, "[H]ow t o d e a l w i t h t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f an e x p e r t w i t n e s s by t h e opposing side, including whether t o p r e s e n t counter expert testimony, t o r e l y upon c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , t o f o r g o c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n and/or to forgo development of c e r t a i n expert o p i n i o n , i s a matter of t r i a l s t r a t e g y which, i f r e a s o n a b l e , c a n n o t be t h e b a s i s f o r a s u c c e s s f u l i n e f f e c t i v e assistance of counsel claim." Thomas v. S t a t e , 284 Ga. 647, 650, 670 S.E.2d 421 43 (2008). CR-08-0670 Daniel failing next to indicated argues question during voir that counsel prospective dire member h a d b e e n t h e v i c t i m was juror examination ineffective for E.C. 9 after t h a t she o r a f a m i l y of a rape. The r e c o r d o f D a n i e l ' s t r i a l shows t h a t i m m e d i a t e l y j u r o r E.C. i n d i c a t e d victim o f a rape, the prosecutor asked: y o u -- w o u l d t h a t c a u s e " L e t me a s k you The f a c t t h a t e i t h e r you a f a m i l y member h a s b e e n a v i c t i m affect after t h a t s h e o r a f a m i l y member h a d b e e n t h e s p e c i f i c a l l y b e f o r e we go o v e r h e r e . or she of a crime, would t h a t y o u t o have more s y m p a t h y i n t h i s c a s e , o r some s y m p a t h y i n t h i s c a s e , a b o u t t h e v i c t i m s i n this case, t h i s case?" i n such a way i t w i l l affect ( T r i a l r e c o r d , p. 80-81.) t h e way y o u d e c i d e E.C. d i d n o t r e s p o n d . S e v e r a l moments l a t e r t h e p r o s e c u t o r a s k e d : " I s t h e r e a n y t h i n g a b o u t t h i s c a s e , o t h e r t h a n t h e c a p i t a l i s s u e t h a t t h e Judge is going t o p r i v a t e l y about t h i s you cannot case speak t o you about, t h a t c r e a t e s a doubt i n anybody's mind t h a t s i tfairly and judge To p r o t e c t t h e a n o n y m i t y initials. 9 i s there anything this case impartially?" o f t h e j u r o r , we a r e u s i n g h e r 44 CR-08-0670 ( T r i a l r e c o r d , p. 95-96.) A g a i n E.C. d i d not respond. Though c o u n s e l d i d not ask the q u e s t i o n of the p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r , juror was a s k e d a b o u t w h e t h e r she c o u l d be impartial in the this case. As we s t a t e d i n Lee v. State: "'The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals c o n s i d e r s an a t t o r n e y ' s a c t i o n s d u r i n g v o i r d i r e t o be a m a t t e r o f t r i a l strategy, w h i c h " c a n n o t be t h e b a s i s f o r a 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 unless c o u n s e l ' s t a c t i c s a r e shown t o be 'so i l l chosen t h a t i t permeates t h a t e n t i r e t r i a l with obvious u n f a i r n e s s . ' " Teague v. S c o t t , 60 F.3d 1167, 1172 ( 5 t h C i r . 1995) ( q u o t i n g G a r l a n d v. M a g g i o , 717 F.2d 199, 206 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 8 3 ) ) . F e d e r a l c o u r t s have h e l d t h a t an a t t o r n e y ' s f a i l u r e t o e x e r c i s e p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e s does n o t g i v e r i s e t o a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel absent a showing t h a t the defendant was p r e j u d i c e d by t h e c o u n s e l ' s f a i l u r e t o e x e r c i s e the c h a l l e n g e s . U n i t e d S t a t e s v. T a y l o r , 832 F.2d 1187 (10th C i r . 1987). See a l s o M a t t h e s o n v. K i n g , 751 F.2d 1432, 1438 (5th C i r . 1985).'" 44 So. 3d a t 1164-65, q u o t i n g Le v. S t a t e , 913 (Miss. 2005). T h e r e was So. 2d 913, no m a t e r i a l i s s u e o f f a c t o r l a w w o u l d have e n t i t l e d D a n i e l t o r e l i e f on t h i s c l a i m . 3 2 . 7 ( d ) , A l a . R. E.C. was pleading C r i m . P. impartial; Also, Daniel therefore, he that See Rule f a i l e d to plead that f a i l e d t o comply w i t h r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. 45 954 Crim. P. the CR-08-0670 Daniel failing next t o argue corroborated argues that counsel was ineffective t h a t J a c k s o n ' s t e s t i m o n y was according to § 12-21-222, not Ala. adequately Code b e c a u s e , he a s s e r t s , J a c k s o n was an a c c o m p l i c e i n t h e In o u r o p i n i o n on d i r e c t a p p e a l we s t a t e d the 1975, murders. following: " B a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d , we a g r e e w i t h t h e trial c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t J a c k s o n was not an a c c o m p l i c e . As t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n d i c a t e d , t h e o n l y t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g any p o t e n t i a l i n v o l v e m e n t by J a c k s o n came f r o m [ D a n i e l ] , who testified that J a c k s o n was s o l e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the murders. T h e r e f o r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o r r e c t l y f o u n d , as a m a t t e r o f l a w , t h a t J a c k s o n was n o t an a c c o m p l i c e . Accordingly, the State was not required to corroborate Jackson's testimony. "Moreover, the State presented sufficient evidence to corroborate Jackson's testimony. S p e c i f i c a l l y , evidence r e g a r d i n g the l o c a t i o n of the v i c t i m ' s b o d i e s ; F a r r o w ' s t e s t i m o n y a b o u t t h e number and t i m i n g o f g u n s h o t s ; e v i d e n c e t h a t b l o o d t h a t m a t c h e d M c C u l l o c h ' s b l o o d p r o f i l e was on a t e n n i s shoe t h a t o f f i c e r s r e c o v e r e d f r o m t h e t r u n k o f a vehicle the a p p e l l a n t had had towed to the a p a r t m e n t s ; e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e t e n n i s shoe was t h e same s i z e as o t h e r s h o e s o f f i c e r s r e c o v e r e d f r o m t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s a p a r t m e n t ; e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e r e were two shoe i m p r e s s i o n s i n t h e v i c t i m s ' a p a r t m e n t t h a t were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h a t t e n n i s shoe; e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e number and locations of s h e l l casings and p r o j e c t i l e s ; evidence t h a t a l l of the s h e l l c a s i n g s and p r o j e c t i l e s were f i r e d f r o m t h e same handgun; and e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e handgun u s e d was p r o b a b l y a .380 s e m i a u t o m a t i c c o r r o b o r a t e d J a c k s o n ' s t e s t i m o n y . 46 for CR-08-0670 Therefore, merit." Daniel, the appellant's is without 906 So. 2d a t 1001. This Court accomplice. specifically held that Thus, t h e s u b s t a n t i v e of i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e the argument substantive claim assistance of counsel ineffective 44 So. 3d a t 1173. was issue underlying of counsel underlying for failing Jackson the claim has no m e r i t . the claim of n o t an "Because ineffective h a s no m e r i t , counsel to raise this issue." Lee v. S t a t e , v. S t a t e , 783 So. 2d 895 See a l s o N i c k s App. 1 9 9 9 ) ; Simmons v. S t a t e , could n o t be (Ala. Crim. 797 So. 2d 1134 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ; Magwood v. S t a t e , 689 So. 2d 959 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . I. D a n i e l a r g u e s t h a t c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g t o impeach Jackson with h i s audiotaped statement to police. D a n i e l p l e a d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g i n h i s amended R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n : "The c h a n g e s i n Mr. J a c k s o n ' s s t o r y b e t w e e n h i s i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w w i t h t h e p o l i c e and h i s t e s t i m o n y at t r i a l are s i g n i f i c a n t and s h o u l d have b e e n exposed through the i n t r o d u c t i o n of h i s audiotaped statement a t t r i a l . H e a r i n g Mr. J a c k s o n c o n t r a d i c t t h e s t a t e m e n t he made i n open c o u r t as o p p o s e d t o h e a r i n g t r i a l counsel q u e s t i o n him about statements he made t o t h e p o l i c e on t h e b a s i s o f i n c o m p l e t e 47 CR-08-0670 n o t e s w o u l d have had Jackson's c r e d i b i l i t y (C. a s i g n i f i c a n t i m p a c t on Mr. i n the eyes of the j u r y . " 176.) Our r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d shows t h a t D a n i e l ' s c o u n s e l had t h e a u d i o t a p e o f J a c k s o n ' s i n t e r v i e w t r a n s c r i b e d and i m p e a c h e d Jackson w i t h the d i s c r e p a n c i e s i n h i s statement his trial testimony. the defense Counsel to p o l i c e a l s o c a l l e d Sgt. Echols c a s e - i n - c h i e f and questioned her police. D o n a l d B a s s , who t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had s e e n J a c k s o n w i t h a gun several before contradicted Counsel Jackson's utilized then the presented murders testimony -- the statement of weeks counsel the testimony gun. Trial during regarding i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n J a c k s o n ' s t r i a l t e s t i m o n y and h i s to and testimony t h a t Jackson many r e s o u r c e s to d i d not impeach that own Jackson's testimony. " G e n e r a l l y , f a i l u r e t o i m p e a c h a w i t n e s s does n o t amount t o 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 . See Commonwealth v. B a r t B., 424 Mass. 911, 916, 679 N.E.2d 531 ( 1 9 9 7 ) , and c a s e s c i t e d . Even on t h e more f a v o r a b l e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w u n d e r § 33E [M.G.L.A. 278 § 33E, e n t i t l e d ' C a p i t a l c a s e s ; r e v i e w by supreme j u d i c i a l c o u r t ' ] , a c l a i m o f i n e f f e c t i v e assistance b a s e d on failure t o use particular impeachment methods i s d i f f i c u l t to establish. Impeachment o f a w i t n e s s i s , by i t s v e r y n a t u r e , f r a u g h t w i t h a host of s t r a t e g i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , to w h i c h we w i l l , e v e n on § 33E r e v i e w , s t i l l show deference. Furthermore, absent counsel's f a i l u r e to 48 a CR-08-0670 p u r s u e some o b v i o u s l y p o w e r f u l f o r m o f impeachment a v a i l a b l e at t r i a l , i t i s s p e c u l a t i v e to conclude t h a t a d i f f e r e n t a p p r o a c h t o impeachment w o u l d l i k e l y have a f f e c t e d t h e j u r y ' s c o n c l u s i o n . " Commonwealth v. F i s h e r , 433 Mass. 340, 356, 75 printed (2001). That counsel used the 742 N.E.2d 61, 74¬ transcript of Jackson's i n t e r v i e w i n s t e a d of the a u d i o t a p e d v e r s i o n d i d not render was counsel's performance c o r r e c t l y d e n i e d on this ineffective. Relief c l a i m because there was no material i s s u e o f f a c t o r law t h a t w o u l d e n t i t l e D a n i e l t o r e l i e f . R u l e 32.7, A l a . R. Crim. See P. IV. Next, during the p e n a l t y The phase Daniel record before argues Daniel's jury, Daniel's mother, C a r o l y n had problems had his counsel in trial that Carolyn he dropped Daniel also when D a n i e l was abusing Daniel, ineffective counsel presented Daniel. school out of She and high testified 12 y e a r s o l d she that Daniel 49 trial. shows t h a t had school that at the been the penalty testimony testified attention d e f i c i t hyperactivity disorder and was phase of h i s c a p i t a l - m u r d e r of the that that of Daniel diagnosed with ("ADHD") and d y s l e x i a i n the a f t e r she 10th grade. remarried l e a r n e d t h a t her husband approached her after and was his CR-08-0670 s t e p f a t h e r b e a t h i m , t h a t he was c o v e r e d i n b r u i s e s a n d m a r k s , that she t o o k kidney removed him t o the h o s p i t a l , as a result that he h a d t o have of the beating, and t h a t her -- were removed from children -- D a n i e l her b y t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s . care testified that a n d h i s two s i s t e r s Daniel remained i n f o s t e r care months a n d t h a t when he was r e t u r n e d a She f u r t h e r f o r about 10 t o h e r he was w i t h d r a w n . A t a r o u n d age 16, she s a i d , he s t a r t e d d r i n k i n g b e e r a n d u s i n g drugs. Last, Carolyn Daniel pleaded that her son t o l i f e imprisonment w i t h o u t and not death. Carolyn At the sentencing sentence the p o s s i b i l i t y of parole hearing D a n i e l a n d Tammi D a n i e l , D a n i e l ' s asked the court t o spare Daniel's the j u r y before the court, older sister, both life. A. First, Daniel asserts that h i s counsel r e c o r d t h a t he was u n p r e p a r e d f o r t h e p e n a l t y This admitted on t h e phase. c l a i m was n o t s u p p o r t e d b y t h e r e c o r d . The record shows t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n t o o k p l a c e a f t e r t h e g u i l t phase: " [ D e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] : My p r e f e r e n c e , J u d g e , w o u l d be t o i n o r d e r t o g e t enough t i m e t o go t h r o u g h a l l t h e i n f o r m a t i o n we n e e d t o go t h r o u g h i s t o s t a r t f i r s t t h i n g i n t h e m o r n i n g as o p p o s e d t o t h i s a f t e r n o o n . 50 CR-08-0670 "The C o u r t : I t ' s o n l y 2:15. I'm n o t g o i n g t o do that. We a r e g o i n g t o have t o go on t h i s a f t e r n o o n and p r o c e e d on. "[Defense c o u n s e l ] : W e l l , minutes before that? "The Court: I w i l l (Trial record, forward " with d i d n o t s t a t e t h a t he was n o t p r e p a r e d t o the penalty s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d . the r e c o r d you a b o u t 30 m i n u t e s p. 885.) Defense counsel go give c a n we g e t a b o u t 35 o r 40 fails phase. Daniel's "An a l l e g a t i o n that claim i s not i s r e f u t e d by t o s t a t e a c l a i m a n d does n o t e s t a b l i s h a material issue of fact 32.7(d)." Beckworth, or law e x i s t s So. 3d a t as r e q u i r e d that by Rule . B. D a n i e l a s s e r t s t h a t h i s t r i a l c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e f o r failing to present biological asserted when father. concerning In h i s second the death of h i s amended p e t i t i o n , Daniel t h a t he was p r e s e n t when h i s m o t h e r s h o t h i s f a t h e r he was three presented t h i s The evidence State, years o l d and t h a t counsel should have claim, asserted the testimony. i n responding following: 51 to this CR-08-0670 " D a n i e l does n o t e x p l a i n t o t h e C o u r t ... why the circumstances of h i s f a t h e r ' s death, whether d i s c o v e r e d by D a n i e l a t age 20 o r h a v i n g w i t n e s s e d i t o r b e i n g p r e s e n t a t age t h r e e , w o u l d have b e e n mitigating.[ ] D a n i e l was a l m o s t 26 y e a r s o l d when he m u r d e r e d t h e v i c t i m s . There i s s i m p l y no reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t the f a c t s s u r r o u n d i n g h i s f a t h e r ' s d e a t h w o u l d have b e e n m i t i g a t i n g . See M i l l s v. S i n g l e t a r y , 63 F.3d 999, 1025 (11th C i r . 1995) (holding t h a t 'evidence of M i l l s ' c h i l d h o o d e n v i r o n m e n t l i k e l y w o u l d have c a r r i e d l i t t l e w e i g h t i n l i g h t o f t h e f a c t t h a t M i l l s was t w e n t y - s i x when he c o m m i t t e d t h e c r i m e . ' ) . " 1 0 (C. 491-92.) D a n i e l f a i l e d t o p l e a d how failure to present evidence his biological So. concerning the f a c t s f a t h e r ' s murder. pleading requirements Hyde, 950 he was p r e j u d i c e d by As we surrounding He f a i l e d t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e o f R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. 2d a t 356. counsel's stated i n Crim. P. See Beckworth: "Beckworth failed to allege specific facts i n d i c a t i n g how he was ' i m p a c t e d ' by h i s d a u g h t e r ' s a l l e g e d s e x u a l a b u s e ; he failed to allege any s p e c i f i c a c t s or omissions of c o u n s e l r e l a t e d t o the a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o p r e s e n t t h i s e v i d e n c e ; and he f a i l e d t o a l l e g e how any a l l e g e d i m p a c t was r e l e v a n t as a mitigating circumstance i n the crime he committed " So. 3d a t . Daniel offered a different f i r s t amended p e t i t i o n . 1 0 his 52 v e r s i o n of these events in CR-08-0670 C. D a n i e l argues t h a t counsel p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t he As stated had was b e e n a b u s e d by h i s above, counsel mother a t the Daniel's ineffective for f a i l i n g presented penalty phase. t h a t D a n i e l was p h y s i c a l l y a b u s e d by one so s e v e r e a k i d n e y was beating removed. was Also, the circuit the hands o f h i s s t e p f a t h e r , ruptured had t o remove t h e had surgery "'"[T]he failure one to mother found as rise a result of h i s k i d n e y s , damaged of t h a t and that additional abuse mitigating 442, 454 ( 6 t h C i r . 2007) Broom v. M i t c h e l l , F.3d 392, 410 (6th C i r . 2006)." testimony United 958, refused to to States amount t o v. Harris, 968 constitutional presented F.3d F.3d the ineffective 408 violation.' (quoting (6th C i r . 2010). "This Court allow F.3d 53 at Daniel N i e l d s v. B r a d s h a w , 482 441 be kidney. present a to s u f f e r e d s e v e r e abuse of previously the that nonstatutory level v. B a g l e y , 604 to and had e v i d e n c e t h a t i s merely c u m u l a t i v e of t h a t a l r e a d y does n o t of testified damaged and t h a t as his stepfather testimony his stepfather court m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t D a n i e l had stepfather. the His to omission of assistance 186, 191 Eley has cumulative of counsel." (5th C i r . 2005). CR-08-0670 "Although provided this as an a more d e t a i l e d C o u r t has provide more ineffective D a r l i n g v. Daniel failing afterthought held that detailed for failing S t a t e , 966 also So. pleaded to present by h i s s t e p f a t h e r . this [defendant's account w i t h even trial present 2d 366, that to the abuse, i f a l t e r n a t e witnesses testimony, to regard father] cumulative 377 is not evidence." ( F l a . 2007). counsel e v i d e n c e t h a t he had Daniel pleaded counsel could was ineffective for been s e x u a l l y abused the f o l l o w i n g : " D u r i n g t h e i n i t i a l m e e t i n g b e t w e e n Mr. D a n i e l ' s family and his current counsel, Mrs. Daniel volunteered information concerning Mr. Western's [Daniel's stepfather's] sexual abuse of her children. Mrs. D a n i e l e x p l a i n e d t h a t , l o n g a f t e r Mr. W e s t e r n had c e a s e d t e r r o r i z i n g t h e D a n i e l f a m i l y she received a c a l l from her oldest daughter, T i a u n a , who was t h e n an a d u l t l i v i n g i n A t l a n t a . During t h e i r c o n v e r s a t i o n , Tiauna t o l d her mother t h a t Mr. W e s t e r n m o l e s t e d h e r and t h r e a t e n e d t h a t i f she o r h e r s i b l i n g s e v e r t o l d , S o c i a l S e r v i c e s w o u l d t a k e them away. A f t e r Mrs. D a n i e l r e l a y e d t h i s e v e n t , Mr. D a n i e l ' s s i s t e r Tammi c o n f i r m e d t h a t she had w i t n e s s e d Mr. W e s t e r n s e x u a l l y abuse h e r b r o t h e r and v o l u n t e e r e d t h a t he a l s o f o r c e d t h e t h r e e D a n i e l c h i l d r e n t o engage i n s e x u a l a c t s w i t h e a c h o t h e r , t h r e a t e n i n g t o k i l l Mrs. D a n i e l i f any o f them told." (C. 188; was e m p h a s i s added.) The e m p h a s i z e d p o r t i o n q u o t e d above t h e e x t e n t o f D a n i e l ' s p l e a d i n g s on t h i s c l a i m . the c l a i m s s u f f i c i e n t l y , [ D a n i e l ] was 54 "To plead required to i d e n t i f y the CR-08-0670 names of the interviewed, to witnesses plead he with information those witnesses alleged should specificity have what w o u l d have p r o v i d e d , been admissible and t o a l l e g e how t h e r e s u l t o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s w o u l d have b e e n a f f e c t e d b y the a d d i t i o n a l testimony." Daniel failed to comply Beckworth, with the So. 3 d a t full-fact pleading r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P. Also, " [ T ] h e mere f a c t t h a t [ t h e d e f e n d a n t ] h a s s u b m i t t e d seventy-eight e x h i b i t s of a d d i t i o n a l information does n o t p r o v e 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 . 'In r e v i e w i n g c o u n s e l ' s p e r f o r m a n c e , a c o u r t must a v o i d u s i n g t h e d i s t o r t i n g e f f e c t s o f h i n d s i g h t and must evaluate the reasonableness of counsel's performance from counsel's p e r s p e c t i v e a t t h e time.' C h a n d l e r [v. U n i t e d S t a t e s ] , 218 F.3d [1305] a t 1316 [ ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ] ( q u o t a t i o n marks a n d c i t a t i o n omitted). ' [ I ] t i s a l l t o o easy f o r a c o u r t , examining counsel's defense a f t e r i t has p r o v e d unsuccessful, t o conclude that a p a r t i c u l a r a c t or o m i s s i o n o f c o u n s e l was u n r e a s o n a b l e . ' Strickland [v. W a s h i n g t o n ] , 466 U.S. [668] a t 689, 104 S . C t . [2052] a t 2065 [ ( 1 9 8 4 ) ] . ' I t i s common p r a c t i c e f o r petitioners attacking their death sentences t o s u b m i t a f f i d a v i t s f r o m w i t n e s s e s who s a y t h e y c o u l d have s u p p l i e d a d d i t i o n a l m i t i g a t i n g circumstance e v i d e n c e , h a d t h e y b e e n c a l l e d , o r ... h a d t h e y b e e n asked the r i g h t questions.' W a t e r s [ v . Thomas], 46 F.3d [1506] a t 1513-14 [ ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 5 ) ] . The e x i s t e n c e o f such m i t i g a t i n g a f f i d a v i t s , however, i s of little significance because they usually e s t a b l i s h ' a t most t h e w h o l l y u n r e m a r k a b l e f a c t t h a t w i t h t h e l u x u r y o f time and t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o focus r e s o u r c e s on s p e c i f i c p a r t s o f a made r e c o r d , p o s t 55 . CR-08-0670 conviction counsel will inevitably identify shortcomings i n the performance of p r i o r counsel.' I d . a t 1514. The mere f a c t t h a t o t h e r w i t n e s s e s m i g h t have b e e n a v a i l a b l e o r t h a t o t h e r t e s t i m o n y m i g h t have b e e n e l i c i t e d f r o m t h o s e who t e s t i f i e d i s not a s u f f i c i e n t ground t o prove i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s of counsel.' Id. ( Q u o t a t i o n marks a n d c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) ; s e e a l s o C h a n d l e r , 218 F.3d a t 1316 n. 20. Thus, t h e p r e s e n c e o f f i f t y - t w o l a r g e l y c u m u l a t i v e a f f i d a v i t s i n t h e A p p e n d i x ... l e n d s l i t t l e , i f a n y , support t o [the defendant's] i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of counsel c l a i m . " Turner v. C r o s b y , Daniel failing next argues that amended ineligible petition, (11th C i r . 2003). counsel to explore the p o s s i b i l i t y r e t a r d e d and thus second 339 F.3d 1247, 1279 was t h a t D a n i e l was f o r the death Daniel ineffective pleaded mentally penalty. that he In h i s had t e s t e d when he was 13 y e a r s o l d a n d i t was d e t e r m i n e d had a for been t h a t he f u l l - s c a l e IQ s c o r e o f 77, w h i c h , he a s s e r t s , a d j u s t i n g the "Flynn e f f e c t " pleaded for 1 1 c o n s t i t u t e s an IQ s c o r e t h e f o l l o w i n g i n h i s amended o f 72. He petition: " B e c a u s e t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y may n o t be i m p o s e d on i n d i v i d u a l s s u f f e r i n g from mental r e t a r d a t i o n , t r i a l " T h e F l y n n E f f e c t .. . p o s i t s t h a t , o v e r t i m e , t h e IQ scores of a population r i s e without corresponding increases i n i n t e l l i g e n c e a n d t h u s t h e t e s t must be r e - n o r m a l i z e d o v e r time." I n r e : M a t h i s , 483 F.3d 395, 398 n. 1 ( 5 t h C i r . 2007). 11 56 CR-08-0670 counsel's failure to procure the institutional r e c o r d s t h a t showed e v e n on an o u t d a t e d IQ test D a n i e l s c o r e d w i t h i n the b o r d e r l i n e range of mental r e t a r d a t i o n i s wholly unreasonable. Indeed, given the p i v o t a l r o l e a d i a g n o s i s of mental r e t a r d a t i o n can p l a y i n a d e a t h p e n a l t y c a s e " (C. 193.) Attached t o D a n i e l ' s amended p e t i t i o n i s a c o p y o f a prepared by report Triebel. that, Daniel Mr. his IQ Daniel scores to have on a f t e r age Daniel's him 18.'" IQ s c o r e s The a test and they borderline D a n i e l ' s a d a p t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g was t o and Marson Dr. D a n i e l a s s e r t e d : " D r s . M a r s o n and T r i e b e l although revealed Dr. Kristen concluded administered intelligence, 'Mr. severely impaired both p r i o r report concluded: as a c h i l d and a d u l t do "[A]lthough not fully Mr. qualify f o r a d i a g n o s i s of mental r e t a r d a t i o n , h i s l i m i t a t i o n s i n adaptive (C.R. f u n c t i o n i n g as a boy and young man on Daniel's arguably do." 369.) At the status trial hearing petition, the court s t a t e d the counsel's c l a i m t h a t D a n i e l was postconviction f o l l o w i n g i n regard mentally retarded: " L e t me r e a d you s o m e t h i n g and see i f you t h i n k t h a t t h i s sounds l i k e a p e r s o n i s m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d . 'Dear Ms. H a s k i n s and Mr. Hughes: Be a d v i s e d I have r e c e i v e d a l e t t e r p e r Mr. Hughes t h a t i s t o t a l l y unacceptable as t o my p r e v i o u s l e t t e r o f F e b r u a r y 2 1 s t , '03 r e q u e s t i n g t h e two o f you p r o v i d e me w i t h all c o p i e s o f d i s c o v e r y e v i d e n c e t h a t you have 57 to CR-08-0670 r e c e i v e v i a t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a i n r e g a r d t o my c r i m i n a l case pending i n J e f f e r s o n County, Alabama. As you a r e aware o f I have b e e n r e q u e s t i n g t h i s d i s c o v e r y e v i d e n c e f o r many weeks now b u t n e i t h e r o f you have s e e n f i t t o h o n o r my r e q u e s t . P l e a s e be a d v i s e d i t i s I who i s t o s t a n d t r i a l , and q u i t e frankly, am facing a sentence of such grave s e r i o u s n e s s of the death sentence. Not my m o t h e r . That s a i d , i t i s I who you a r e t o r e m a i n in communication w i t h , n o t my m o t h e r . See A l a b a m a R u l e s o f C o u r t , R u l e 1.2 and R u l e 1.4, Scope o f R e p r e s e n t a t i o n and C o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h C l i e n t . See a l s o Rule 34(c). These r u l e s a r e r u l e s o f c o u r t a l a w y e r ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , as I know you a r e w e l l cognizant of. The a f o r e new d o c u m e n t s , I i n s t r u c t you b o t h as l e g a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e C o u r t , t h e A l a b a m a B a r A s s o c i a t i o n s members, members o f t h e B i r m i n g h a m B a r A s s o c i a t i o n , and as my l a w y e r s t h a t r e p r e s e n t me i n r e : S t a t e v. R e n a r d D a n i e l , t o p r o m p t l y do t h e b e l o w f o r me. "'1. A m o t i o n f o r a 90-day e x t e n s i o n o f t i m e f i l e d i m m e d i a t e l y p e r t h e two o f you and i n my b e h a l f f o r any and a l l r e a s o n s you see f i t and w h i c h t o have t h i s e x t e n s i o n g r a n t e d , and by t h e way, f o r me t o : "'A. Be i m m e d i a t e l y m a i l e d f o r my v i e w i n g t o me a l l e v i d e n c e p e r t h e S t a t e r e g a r d i n g my c a s e . "'B. For the two of you to immediately s c h e d u l e w i t h t h e Wardens, McDonnell and/or R o w e l l , a t the Kilby C o r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i t y , Mt. M e i g s , A l a b a m a , a conference, i.e. client-lawyer c o n f e r e n c e , ASAP, i n w h i c h f o r me t o c o n f e r w i t h two o f you i n t h i s c a s e . Due t o t h e g r a v e s e r i o u s n e s s and t h e s e n t e n c e o f d e a t h t h a t I p o s s i b l y f a c e , I r e q u e s t and r e s p e c t my w i s h e s be p r o m p t l y met as w e l l as f o r the c a n c e l l a t i o n of a t r a n s f e r to the 58 CR-08-0670 Jefferson County Jail, and a prompt c o n f e r e n c e w i t h t h e two o f you and the K.C.F. p u r s u a n t t o 28 U.S.C. 1746. I swear under p e n a l t y of p e r j u r y the f o r e g o i n g i s t r u e and c o r r e c t . I t h a n k you f o r y o u r t i m e i n t h i s r e g a r d and l o o k f o r w a r d t o h e a r i n g f r o m you, and s e e i n g t h e two of soon. R e s p e c t f u l l y y o u r s , Renard D a n i e l . ' "Does t h a t s o u n d l i k e t h a t l e t t e r was somebody t h a t was m e n t a l l y retarded?" (Supple. R., The in his p. 30-32.) r e c o r d of D a n i e l ' s own w r i t t e n by defense, that answered the q u e s t i o n s he put of mental r e t a r d a t i o n . trial He shows t h a t D a n i e l appeared a r t i c u l a t e t o him, and t h a t he and easily showed no sign been l i v i n g i n an a p a r t m e n t i n t h e c o m p l e x where t h e m u r d e r s t o o k p l a c e , t h a t he worked at H i l l one met block from H i l l George Properties Top Jackson Jackson was parking lot. that Top as a r o o f e r , and Properties. several working He s a i d t h a t he had testified on s a i d t h a t he lived Daniel t e s t i f i e d that weeks his t h a t he before the the murders car in and J a c k s o n became f r i e n d s they f r e q u e n t l y drank beer together. t h a t Jackson committed the apartment when complex and murders. Also, at a pretrial-motion i n d i c a t e d t h a t he was requesting 59 hearing Daniel he trial a mental e v a l u a t i o n testified counsel because CR-08-0670 of i n f o r m a t i o n diagnosed obtained with ADHD by D a n i e l ' s and m o t h e r t h a t he h a d been dyslexia but based on his c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h D a n i e l he d i d n o t b e l i e v e t h a t a f u l l - b l o w n evaluation stated was necessary. at t h i s hearing (Trial that he R. 15-20.) asked both Counsel Daniel also and h i s m o t h e r i f D a n i e l h a d been t r e a t e d f o r any m e n t a l i l l n e s s and b o t h i n d i c a t e d t h a t he h a d n o t . The U n i t e d 536 U.S. 304 States Supreme (2002), held Court that i n Atkins i t was v. Virginia, a violation of the E i g h t h Amendment t o e x e c u t e a m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d i n d i v i d u a l b u t that i t was up retardation. this to the i n d i v i d u a l t h e Alabama P e r k i n s , 851 So. 2d 453 must intellectual significant (3) t h e s e Court mental addressing i n Ex parte ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) , a d o p t e d t h e most l i b e r a l possess: According (1) to Perkins, the significant f u n c t i o n i n g ; i . e . , an IQ (2) or s u b s t a n t i a l d e f i c i t s i n adaptive behavior; and d e f e c t s must have m a n i f e s t e d i . e . , before o f 70 subaverage or below; developmental years; age o f 18. Supreme of mental r e t a r d a t i o n . defendant to define A l a b a m a has y e t t o e n a c t l e g i s l a t i o n i s s u e ; however, definition states themselves during the the defendant reached the Daniel a s s e r t s that according to the Flynn 60 effect, CR-08-0670 h i s IQ i s 72 a n d he a r g u e s t h a t he i s r e t a r d e d a n d c o u n s e l ineffective for failing has yet to to present evidence of was mental retardation. Alabama Beckworth, So. 3d a t address n. 5. the "Flynn effect." The U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o r t h e E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t has s t a t e d : "[A]ll the experts acknowledged t h a t the Flynn effect is a statistically-proven phenomenon, although no m e d i c a l association recognizes i t s validity. Numerous courts recognize the Flynn e f f e c t . See e . g . , W a l k e r v. T r u e , 399 F.3d 315, 322-23 ( 4 t h C i r . 2005) ( s t a t i n g t h a t on remand, t h e d i s t r i c t court should consider the Flynn effect e v i d e n c e t o d e t e r m i n e i f p e t i t i o n e r ' s IQ s c o r e i s o v e r s t a t e d ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v. D a v i s , 611 F.Supp.2d 472, 486-88 (D.Md. 2009) ( d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d Flynn effect in evaluation of defendant's i n t e l l e c t u a l f u n c t i o n i n g ) ; P e o p l e v. S u p e r i o r C o u r t , 28 C a l . R p t r . 3 d 529, 558-59 ( C a l . C t . App. 2 0 0 5 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s b y 40 C a l . 4 t h 999, 56 C a l . R p t r . 3 d 851, 155 P.3d 259 (2007) ( r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t F l y n n e f f e c t must be c o n s i d e r e d ) ; S t a t e v. B u r k e , No. 04AP-1234 ... (Ohio C t . App. Dec. 30, 2005) [ ( n o t r e p o r t e d i n N.E.2d)] (stating that c o u r t must c o n s i d e r e v i d e n c e on F l y n n e f f e c t , b u t i t i s w i t h i n c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n whether t o i n c l u d e i t as a f a c t o r i n t h e IQ s c o r e ) . T h e r e a r e a l s o c o u r t s t h a t do n o t r e c o g n i z e t h e F l y n n e f f e c t . See I n r e M a t h i s , 483 F.3d 395, 398 n. 1 ( 5 t h C i r . 2007) ( n o t i n g t h a t c i r c u i t has n o t r e c o g n i z e d F l y n n e f f e c t as scientifically valid); Berry v. E p p s , No. 1:04CV328-D-D ... (N.D. M i s s . O c t . 5, 2006) [ ( n o t r e p o r t e d i n F. Supp. 2 d ) ] ( r e f u s i n g t o c o n s i d e r F l y n n e f f e c t ) ; B o w l i n g v. Commonwealth, 163 S.W.3d 361, 374-75 (Ky. 2005) ( n o t i n g t h a t b e c a u s e K e n t u c k y s t a t u t e u n a m b i g u o u s l y s e t s IQ s c o r e o f 70 as c u t o f f , 61 See CR-08-0670 c o u r t s c a n n o t c o n s i d e r F l y n n e f f e c t o r SEM e r r o r o f measurement])." [standard Thomas v . A l l e n , 607 F.3d 749, 757 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) . See a l s o Nava F e l d m a n , A p p l i c a t i o n o f C o n s t i t u t i o n a l R u l e o f A t k i n s v . Virginia, (2002), 536 U.S. that Constitutes 304, Execution of S . C t . 2242, Mentally 153 L.Ed.2d Retarded and Unusual Punishment' E i g h t h Amendment, 122 A . L . R . 5 t h 335 Persons 145 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . Even 'Cruel 122 considering the Flynn effect, i n V i o l a t i o n of Daniel d i d not plead i n h i s p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n t h a t h i s IQ was 70 o r b e l o w . " I n h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , P o w e l l a l l e g e d t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t as t h e b a s i s f o r h i s c l a i m o f m e n t a l r e t a r d a t i o n : 'Mr. P o w e l l was d i a g n o s e d as m i l d l y m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d i n t h e f i f t h grade by t h e Lake County, I l l i n o i s s c h o o l system.' However, P o w e l l d i d n o t a l l e g e i n h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n t h a t h i s IQ was o r i s 70 o r b e l o w , w h i c h i s n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g o f m e n t a l r e t a r d a t i o n i n Alabama. See [Ex parte] P e r k i n s , 851 So. 2d [453] a t 456 [ ( A l a . 2002)]. Because a f i n d i n g o f mental r e t a r d a t i o n t o s u s t a i n an A t k i n s c l a i m r e q u i r e s b o t h s i g n i f i c a n t l y subaverage i n t e l l e c t u a l f u n c t i o n i n g and s i g n i f i c a n t d e f i c i t s i n adaptive f u n c t i o n i n g , Powell had f a i l e d t o p l e a d f a c t s on w h i c h an A t k i n s c l a i m c a n be based." Powell v. A l l e n , 602 F.3d 1263, 1272 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) . same i s t r u e i n t h i s c a s e -- D a n i e l f a i l e d t o p l e a d f a c t s t o s u p p o r t an A t k i n s claim. 62 The sufficient CR-08-0670 Also, counsel his stated before conversations with Daniel's D a n i e l he d i d not trial that based believe that a on full m e n t a l e v a l u a t i o n was n e c e s s a r y and t h a t D a n i e l and h i s m o t h e r told had him that illness. To ineffective mentally Daniel the extent n e v e r been t r e a t e d that Daniel f o r f a i l i n g to explore retarded, there Crim. mental argues t h a t counsel was t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t he i s no m a t e r i a l i s s u e o r f a c t t h a t would e n t i t l e Daniel 3 2 . 7 ( d ) , A l a . R. f o r any to r e l i e f on this claim. or See is law Rule P. E. D a n i e l argues t h a t counsel was p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t D a n i e l was In Daniel's one-paragraph ineffective for f a i l i n g to depressed. pleading on this claim, he stated: "In connection with their neuropsychological e v a l u a t i o n o f Mr. D a n i e l , D r s . [ D a n i e l ] M a r s o n and [ K r i s t e n ] T r e i b e l a l s o c o n c l u d e d t h a t Mr. D a n i e l i s currently ' s e v e r e l y d e p r e s s e d ' and that i t ' i s l i k e l y t h a t Mr. D a n i e l had s u f f e r e d f r o m d e p r e s s i o n since childhood.'" (C. 196.) factor Daniel i n the murders, or present t h i s d i d not murders, t h a t that he was plead that i t was relevant prejudiced e v i d e n c e a t the penalty 63 his by depression to mitigate counsel's phase. was To failure satisfy a the to the CR-08-0670 pleading requirements assistance of counsel, indicating that he omission...." claims of ineffective a p e t i t i o n e r must " p l e a d s p e c i f i c o r she was Hyde, satisfy this concerning prejudiced 950 So. 2d a t 356. by facts the acts Daniel or failed to burden. F. Daniel failing next argues that counsel was ineffective for t o p r e s e n t evidence t h a t h i s f a m i l y had a h i s t o r y o f mental i l l n e s s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , he a s s e r t s t h a t c o u n s e l should have p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e t h a t h i s m o t h e r s u f f e r e d f r o m severe depression. Daniel pleaded that presented testimony that child and h o s p i t a l i z e d his trial Daniel's counsel should m o t h e r was d e p r e s s e d as a a t t h e age o f 13 a f t e r she a t t e m p t e d s u i c i d e , t h a t when D a n i e l was 7 y e a r s o l d h i s m o t h e r depression and that after condition at that This claim suffered l e a r n i n g about her adopted mother's she h a d b e e n p r e s c r i b e d have V a l i u m and l i t h i u m death, f o r her time. was correctly summarily dismissed f o r the r e a s o n s t h a t we s t a t e d i n B e c k w o r t h : "Beckworth argues t h a t when i t s u m m a r i l y d i s m i s s e d 64 the t r i a l court erred the claim that counsel CR-08-0670 h a d r e n d e r e d d e f i c i e n t p e r f o r m a n c e when t h e y f a i l e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e and p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e o f B e c k w o r t h ' s family history of mental illness and mental r e t a r d a t i o n . ... The t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r when i t summarily d i s m i s s e d t h i s c l a i m because i t d i d not meet t h e s p e c i f i c i t y and f u l l factual pleading r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 32.3 and R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) . " F i r s t , B e c k w o r t h f a i l e d t o a l l e g e any f a c t s i n d i c a t i n g why e v i d e n c e a b o u t f a m i l y members' m e n t a l r e t a r d a t i o n and m e n t a l i l l n e s s was r e l e v a n t o r t h a t it would have been admissible at h i s trial. A l t h o u g h t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d i n L o c k e t t v. O h i o , 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , t h a t a d e f e n d a n t c o n v i c t e d o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r must n o t be p r e c l u d e d f r o m p r e s e n t i n g a b r o a d range of proposed m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e a t h i s s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , the Court l i m i t e d the range t o 'any a s p e c t o f a d e f e n d a n t ' s c h a r a c t e r o r r e c o r d and any o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e o f f e n s e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t p r o f f e r s as a b a s i s f o r a s e n t e n c e l e s s t h a n d e a t h . ' 438 U.S. a t 604, 98 S.Ct. 2954. A l t h o u g h B e c k w o r t h a l l e g e d i n p a r a g r a p h 142 o f h i s p e t i t i o n t h a t '[s]ome f o r m s o f m e n t a l r e t a r d a t i o n are g e n e t i c ' (C. 4 0 ) , he f a i l e d t o a l l e g e t h a t t h e f o r m o f m e n t a l r e t a r d a t i o n f r o m w h i c h he o r h i s f a m i l y members a l l e g e d l y s u f f e r e d was one o f t h o s e g e n e t i c f o r m s . B e c k w o r t h f a i l e d t o make any f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n s i n d i c a t i n g the r e l e v a n c e of evidence of mental i l l n e s s i n h i s family. T h e r e f o r e , Beckworth f a i l e d t o a l l e g e any s p e c i f i c f a c t s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the e v i d e n c e he s a y s c o u n s e l s h o u l d have d i s c o v e r e d and p r e s e n t e d was r e l e v a n t o r t h a t i t w o u l d have been a d m i s s i b l e a t t r i a l . "Furthermore, Beckworth failed to allege s p e c i f i c f a c t s r e g a r d i n g how t r i a l c o u n s e l c o u l d have r e a s o n a b l y d i s c o v e r e d t h i s e v i d e n c e and how, through t h e i r a l l e g e d l y unreasonable actions they f a i l e d t o d i s c o v e r i t . ... F i n a l l y B e c k w o r t h f a i l e d to allege any specific facts indicating how 65 CR-08-0670 p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e w o u l d have c h a n g e d r e s u l t at t r i a l . " So. the 3d a t . L i k e Beckworth, Daniel f a i l e d to plead evidence of h i s mother's mental i l l n e s s relevant to the mitigate the double-homicide p r e j u d i c e d by t h e f a i l u r e t o p r e s e n t w o u l d have b e e n and how t h i s evidence. he The was full- f a c t s were n o t p l e a d e d on t h i s c l a i m ; t h e r e f o r e , a c c o r d i n g R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( d ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., i t was how to c o r r e c t l y dismissed. G. Daniel next argues f a i l i n g to present c o u n s e l was had i n possession detrimental e f f e c t Mr. life, counsel's t h i s manner was The counsel was ineffective for e v i d e n c e o f h i s a l c o h o l and d r u g abuse when a severe a d d i c t i o n . trial that o f documents t h a t showed t h a t He p l e a d e d : " G i v e n t h e Daniel's addictions d e c i s i o n to l i m i t Daniel devastatingly have had on his presentation o b j e c t i v e l y unreasonable." (C.R. in 199.) State argued the f o l l o w i n g i n i t s motion to dismiss: "At t r i a l , D a n i e l ' s m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t she r e a l i z e d he was u s i n g d r u g s and a l c o h o l when he was a b o u t 16 y e a r s o l d . D a n i e l t e s t i f i e d he had b e e n d r i n k i n g b e e r and s m o k i n g m a r i j u a n a t h e n i g h t o f t h e murders. Daniel's testimony, even d u r i n g crossexamination, was c l e a r and a r t i c u l a t e . Further, y o u r Honor c o n s i d e r e d t h e f a c t t h a t D a n i e l had d r a n k a l c o h o l and u s e d d r u g s s i n c e he was 16 y e a r s o l d i n m i t i g a t i o n . D a n i e l ' s testimony about h i s v e r s i o n of 66 his CR-08-0670 what h a p p e n e d t h e n i g h t o f t h e m u r d e r s s h o u l d r e f u t e any c l a i m h i s p a s t use o f a l c o h o l and d r u g s a f f e c t e d h i s a b i l i t y to conform h i s b e h a v i o r . "Even i f more e v i d e n c e t h a t D a n i e l had a h i s t o r y o f d r u g and a l c o h o l a b u s e had b e e n p r e s e n t e d t o t h e j u r y , 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 e outcome o f t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e m i g h t have b e e n d i f f e r e n t . " (C. 501.) Evidence to the jury concerning through D a n i e l ' s use various o f d r u g s was witnesses at presented Daniel's trial. J a c k s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y b o t h had b e e n d r i n k i n g b e e r b e f o r e t h e m u r d e r s and t h a t D a n i e l d r a n k t h r e e o r f o u r b e e r s . the circuit substance court abuse. concerning this dismissed. See Daniel next found as T h e r e was claim; Rule this history of no m a t e r i a l i s s u e o f f a c t o r law thus, 32.7(d), argues i t was A l a . R. that f a i l i n g to present evidence extreme p o v e r t y . m i t i g a t i o n Daniel's Also, counsel correctly Crim. was P. ineffective s h o w i n g t h a t D a n i e l was Daniel pleaded the summarily following raised in i n regard claim: " T r i a l c o u n s e l a l s o f a i l e d t o p r o c u r e human r e s o u r c e s r e c o r d s showing t h a t , at times, d u r i n g h i s c h i l d h o o d , Mr. D a n i e l ' s f a m i l y d e p e n d e d upon f o o d stamps or subsidies provide to them by the g o v e r n m e n t . Such e v i d e n c e s h o u l d have b e e n o b t a i n e d 67 for to CR-08-0670 and p r e s e n t e d t o t h e j u r y . See A r m s t r o n g v. Dugger, 833 F.2d 1430 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1987) ( w r i t i s s u e d where c o u n s e l f a i l e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e and p r e s e n t , among other t h i n g s , evidence of p e t i t i o n e r ' s childhood poverty)." (C. 199.) Daniel failure T h i s was failed to plead to present poverty or homicide. how See Daniel's how evidence i t was A l a . R. Crim. Daniel next argues to present was this p r e j u d i c e d by So. to 3d mitigate at by double . Therefore, he f u l l - f a c t p l e a d i n g requirements of P. that counsel mitigating the marked the was evidence ineffective from his s i s t e r , and a u n t t h a t he had a h i s t o r y o f n o n v i o l e n t Daniel pleaded issue. counsel's t h a t h i s c h i l d h o o d was Beckworth, 32.6, failing he relevant f a i l e d t o comply w i t h the Rule e n t i r e p l e a d i n g on f o l l o w i n g i n regard to t h i s mother, behavior. claim: " T r i a l counsel f a i l e d t o put b e f o r e the j u r y evidence o f Mr. D a n i e l ' s c h a r a c t e r o r h i s non¬ v i o l e n t past. B o t h Mr. D a n i e l ' s m o t h e r and s i s t e r w o u l d have t e s t i f i e d t o Mr. D a n i e l ' s n o n - v i o l e n t d i s p o s i t i o n and t o l d t h e j u r y t h a t Mr. D a n i e l n e v e r r e s p o n d e d t o v e r b a l c o n f l i c t w i t h p h y s i c a l f o r c e and never p l a y e d the r o l e of aggressor. In a d d i t i o n , Mr. D a n i e l ' s c r i m i n a l r e c o r d d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t , w i t h t h e one e x c e p t i o n o f t h e s e c o n d d e g r e e b u r g l a r y c h a r g e i n t r o d u c e d by t h e S t a t e Mr. D a n i e l ' s p a s t offenses were a l l non-violent, ranging from distribution crimes to c r i m i n a l trespass. The 68 for CR-08-0670 U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t has recognized that evidence of a defendant's n o n - v i o l e n t nature or l a c k of f u t u r e dangerousness 'may alter the jury's s e l e c t i o n o f p e n a l t y , e v e n i f i t does n o t u n d e r m i n e or rebut the p r o s e c u t i o n ' s d e a t h - e l i g i b i l i t y case.' Williams [v. Taylor], 529 U.S. [362] at 398 [(2000)]. [ ] 12 " O t h e r members o f Mr. Daniel's f a m i l y were a v a i l a b l e t o t e s t i f y as c h a r a c t e r w i t n e s s e s a t Mr. Daniel's t r i a l . When she h e a r d t h a t c u r r e n t c o u n s e l were r e p r e s e n t i n g Mr. D a n i e l i n t h e s e proceedings, Mr. Daniel's aunt, L e i l a Lawler, volunteered to t e s t i f y as a c h a r a c t e r w i t n e s s on h e r nephew's behalf. T h e r e i s no r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e she w o u l d have b e e n u n w i l l i n g t o do so a t Mr. D a n i e l ' s t r i a l . " (C. 199-200.) The State asserted the following in i t s motion to dismiss: 12 " I n W i l l i a m s v. T a y l o r , 529 U.S. 362 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t found that counsel's performance was d e f i c i e n t because counsel d i d not b e g i n t o i n v e s t i g a t e m i t i g a t i o n evidence u n t i l a week b e f o r e t r i a l and c o u n s e l ' f a i l e d t o c o n d u c t an i n v e s t i g a t i o n t h a t w o u l d have uncovered extensive records g r a p h i c a l l y describing Williams' nightmarish childhood, n o t b e c a u s e o f any s t r a t e g i c c a l c u l a t i o n but because they i n c o r r e c t l y thought t h a t s t a t e law b a r r e d access t o such r e c o r d s . ' 529 U.S. a t 395." S t a t e v. Gamble, [Ms. CR-06-2274, O c t o b e r 1, 2010] (Ala. C r i m . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . r 69 So. 3d CR-08-0670 " D a n i e l does n o t p r o f f e r what f a c t s c o u l d have [been] i n t r o d u c e d t h a t w o u l d have q u a l i f i e d h i s mother, h i s s i s t e r , o r h i s aunt t o t e s t i f y about t h e s p e c i f i c t r a i t f o r non-violence. D a n i e l l e f t home when he was 18 y e a r s o l d a n d s p e n t t h e f o u r y e a r s preceding t h e murders i n p r i s o n . Further, i f evidence that Daniel d i d not respond t o v e r b a l c o n f l i c t w i t h p h y s i c a l f o r c e was p r e s e n t e d , t h e p r o s e c u t i o n c o u l d have c e r t a i n l y r e b u t t e d i t b y emphasizing the f a c t s o f t h i s case. The j u r y f o u n d beyond any reasonable doubt that Daniel i n t e n t i o n a l l y gunned down two unarmed p e o p l e i n c o l d b l o o d i n t h e i r own a p a r t m e n t j u s t b e c a u s e D a n i e l was o f f e n d e d b y what one o f them s a i d . A l s o , even i f D a n i e l ' s p r i o r c r i m i n a l r e c o r d does n o t i n c l u d e a r r e s t s a n d / o r c o n v i c t i o n s f o r many v i o l e n t c r i m e s , h i s r e c o r d c o u l d have b e e n c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e j u r o r s as d e m o n s t r a t i n g he h a s a c o m p l e t e d i s r e s p e c t f o r the law and t h e r i g h t s o f o t h e r s . " (C. 504-05.) The record of Daniel's knowledge o f D a n i e l ' s the presentence Daniel's p r i o r trial shows that counsel had c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y -- i t was d e t a i l e d i n report. Counsel knew t h a t the majority of c o n v i c t i o n s were f o r n o n v i o l e n t offenses. we have s t a t e d : "'[W]hen faced with overwhelming aggravating circumstances, trial counsel r e a s o n a b l y may c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y o f c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r w i t n e s s e s w o u l d be o f l i t t l e h e l p t o t h e d e f e n s e . 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 699, 104 S.Ct. [2052] a t 2070-2071 [ ( 1 9 8 4 ) ] . This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e i f such testimony w o u l d open t h e d o o r t o p r e s e n t a t i o n o f damaging e v i d e n c e by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . ' " 70 As CR-08-0670 B r o o k s v. quoting State, D a v i s v. 929 So. 2d P e o p l e , 871 491, 511 P.2d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 769, 773 (Colo. 2005), 1994). "[D]ebatable trial tactics generally do not constitute i n e f f e c t i v e assistance of counsel. [ S t a t e v.] C l a y t o n , 62 O h i o S t . 2d a t 49, 402 N.E.2d 1189 [ ( 1 9 8 0 ) ] . T h i s c o u r t must i n d u l g e i n a s t r o n g presumption that trial counsel's conduct falls w i t h i n the wide range of r e a s o n a b l e p r o f e s s i o n a l assistance. [ S t a t e v.] H a r t m a n , 93 O h i o S t . 3 d a t 300, 754 N.E.2d 1150 [(2001)]. S i g n i f i c a n t l y , the e x i s t e n c e of a l t e r n a t i v e or a d d i t i o n a l m i t i g a t i o n t h e o r i e s g e n e r a l l y does n o t e s t a b l i s h i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l . [ S t a t e v.] Combs, 100 O h i o A p p . 3 d [90,] 105, 652 N.E.2d 205 [(1994)]." Phillips v. T h e r e was Daniel Bradshaw, 607 F.3d Daniel asserts See that counsel Phillips was Crim. ineffective for failing M a r t h a L o r i n g , t o c o l l e c t and a mitigation specialist requirement of v. B r a d s h a w , 607 entitle P. c o n c e r n i n g m i t i g a t i o n evidence at the p e n a l t y "[H]iring a (6th C i r . 2010). R u l e 3 2 . 7 ( d ) , A l a . R. to h i r e a m i t i g a t i o n expert, not 206-07 no m a t e r i a l i s s u e o f f a c t o r law t h a t w o u l d to r e l i e f . testify 199, effective F.3d at in a capital assistance of phase. case is counsel." 207-08. "[The p e t i t i o n e r ] c l a i m s ' i n a d e q u a t e p r e p a r a t i o n and presentation of mitigation evidence,' because c o u n s e l s h o u l d have h i r e d a ' m i t i g a t i o n s p e c i a l i s t ' t o g a t h e r m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e . However, he c i t e s no 71 to CR-08-0670 a u t h o r i t y that t h i s i s a requirement of e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e , a n d we h o l d t h a t i t i s n o t . " S t a t e v. M c G u i r e , 80 O h i o S t . 3d 390, 399, 686 N.Ed.2d 1112, 1120 (1997). See a l s o Damned I f You D o n ' t : J o n a t h a n P. Tomes, Damned I f You Do, The Use o f M i t i g a t i o n E x p e r t s i n D e a t h P e n a l t y L i t i g a t i o n , 24 Am. J . C r i m . L. 359 (1997) court casts i t s grounds f o r f a i l i n g ("Whether a to find a constitutional v i o l a t i o n o f t h e r i g h t t o c o u n s e l f o r f a i l u r e t o h i r e o r use a mitigation expert i n terms of the defendant's f a i l u r e to meet e i t h e r o r b o t h o f t h e S t r i c k l a n d p r o n g s , as a r e a s o n a b l e tactical decision, the -- a f f i r m a n c e same o r as a p r o c e d u r a l m a t t e r , of the death penalty the r e s u l t i s i n a l l but the v e r y few c a s e s i n w h i c h c o u n s e l ' s p e r f o r m a n c e i s so d e f i c i e n t that and t h e defendant can s a t i s f y t h e h i g h h u r d l e o f S t r i c k l a n d i t s progeny."). Daniel d i d n o t p l e a d t h a t L o r i n g was a v a i l a b l e t o t e s t i f y at Daniel's t r i a l . that, i f true, unreasonable expert. expert N o r d i d he p l e a d any f a c t s i n h i s p e t i t i o n would for trial He a l l e g e d could discovered. have establish counsel no a d d i t i o n a l discovered that not to hire facts that i t was that he objectively a mitigation the m i t i g a t i o n could not have T h i s c l a i m was c o r r e c t l y s u m m a r i l y d i s m i s s e d as 72 CR-08-0670 i t f a i l e d t o meet t h e p l e a d i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s R. C r i m . o f R u l e 32.6, A l a . P. D a n i e l a s s e r t s t h a t c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e to present the testimony of other witnesses phase; however, h i s p e t i t i o n i d e n t i f i e s Daniel's sister, Tammi Daniel, stepfather of L o r e t t a McCulloch, Daniel pleaded the following present h i s s i s t e r ' s the and for failing at the penalty o n l y two w i t n e s s e s -¬ Spencer Sims, the one o f t h e v i c t i m ' s . concerning the f a i l u r e to testimony at the penalty hearing before jury: "At the sentencing hearing, trial counsel p r e s e n t e d t h e t e s t i m o n y o f Tammi D a n i e l -- a w i t n e s s who c o u l d e a s i l y have t e s t i f i e d d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y phase b e f o r e t h e j u r y . T r i a l counsel's choice t o have Ms. D a n i e l t e s t i f y a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g establishes that trial counsel b e l i e v e d her t e s t i m o n y w o u l d be h e l p f u l t o Mr. D a n i e l a n d f u r t h e r h i g h l i g h t s the f a c t that t r i a l counsel unreasonably failed t o pursue m i t i g a t i o n evidence t h a t was a v a i l a b l e p r i o r t o t h e s e n t e n c i n g phase. Thus, t r i a l c o u n s e l ' s d e c i s i o n n o t t o c a l l Mr. D a n i e l ' s s i s t e r t o t e s t i f y b e f o r e t h e j u r y c a n n o t have b e e n the p r o d u c t o f a sound t r i a l s t r a t e g y . " Daniel failed to plead what testimony Daniel's sister c o u l d have p r e s e n t e d a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e j u r y 73 CR-08-0670 -- he f a i l e d t o p l e a d t h e f u l l f a c t s i n s u p p o r t See R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. C r i m . of t h i s claim. P. A l s o , t h e r e c o r d shows t h a t t h e S t a t e c a l l e d Sims a t t h e judicial spare s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g and Sims r e q u e s t e d Daniel's judicial sentencing brother's for life. failing hearing life. Tammi hearing Daniel also testified a t the and a s k e d t h e c o u r t t o s p a r e h e r Daniel asserts that counsel to present that the court this t h a t was h e l d b e f o r e evidence was ineffective i n the penalty phase the j u r y . However, "'[T]he o p i n i o n of a r e l a t i v e of a v i c t i m i s i r r e l e v a n t t o the j u r y ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y s h o u l d be i m p o s e d . ' R o b i s o n v. M a y n a r d , 943 F.2d 1216, 1217 (10th C i r . ) , cert. D e n i e d , 502 U.S. 970, 112 S.Ct. 445, 116 L.Ed.2d 463 (1991) . See a l s o R o b i s o n v. M a y n a r d , 829 F.2d 1501, 1504-05 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1987) . Such t e s t i m o n y is ' c a l c u l a t e d t o i n c i t e a r b i t r a r y response' from the jury. R o b i s o n , 829 F.2d a t 1505." Taylor See v. S t a t e , also 1995). Gaddy v. Counsel inadmissible 295. 666 So. 2d 36, State, 698 51 So. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2d 1100 i s not i n e f f e c t i v e evidence. See Kuehne ( A l a . Crim. for failing v. 1994). State, 107 to App. present S.W.3d a t T h i s c l a i m was c o r r e c t l y d i s m i s s e d b e c a u s e i t p r e s e n t e d 74 CR-08-0670 no material issue of Daniel to r e l i e f . fact See or Rule law t h a t w o u l d have 32.7(d), A l a . R. Crim. entitled P. L. Daniel asserts, argues counsel that counsel the Rompilla v. asserts United that ineffective f a i l e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e and the a g g r a v a t i n g circumstances violating was Beard, because, he c h a l l e n g e one of r e l i e d on by t h e S t a t e , States Supreme Court's 545 U.S. 374 counsel was thereby he for ineffective in Specifically, (2005). decision to failing i n v e s t i g a t e h i s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n f o r attempted b u r g l a r y i n the second degree: d e s c r i b i n g Mr. "Because official Daniel's prior government records c o n v i c t i o n do n o t e v e n m e n t i o n t h e w o r d ' r a p e , ' t r i a l c o u n s e l s h o u l d have made some e f f o r t discover how this this case, element of the offense was added." to (C. 207.) In found the existence that the murders c o m m i t t e d w h i l e D a n i e l was under a sentence of § 1975; three aggravating 13A-5-49(1), committed another the circuit court circumstances: Ala. Code after Daniel had capital offense or (1) (2) that previously a 75 felony the been involving of were imprisonment, murders convicted the use were of or CR-08-0670 t h r e a t of v i o l e n c e to the person, 1975; two and (3) t h a t D a n i e l intentionally caused the death or o r more p e r s o n s b y one a c t o r p u r s u a n t t o one scheme o r course o f c o n d u c t , § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 9 ( 9 ) , A l a . Code 1975. The record of Daniel's n o t i f i e d of the aggravating to § 13A- 5 - 4 9 ( 2 ) , A l a . Code rely on t o s u p p o r t summary s h e e t , trial shows circumstances a death that counsel the State sentence. The was intended case-action- t h e a f f i d a v i t / w a r r a n t , and t h e i n d i c t m e n t f o r Daniel's p r i o r burglary c o n v i c t i o n are contained i n the record of D a n i e l ' s trial. The a f f i d a v i t / w a r r a n t s t a t e s t h a t was c h a r g e d w i t h a t t e m p t i n g r e c o r d , C.R. unlawfully 317.) enter t o e n t e r B.S.'s d w e l l i n g . The i n d i c t m e n t the Daniel lawfully (Trial charged that D a n i e l : " d i d occupied dwelling house o f [ B . S . ] , w i t h i n t e n t t o commit a t h e f t o r a f e l o n y t h e r e i n , t o w i t : Rape, i n v i o l a t i o n o f S e c t i o n 13A-7-6(b) o f t h e A l a b a m a C r i m i n a l Code. ... " The record involved counsel does ( T r i a l r e c o r d , C.R. 318; e m p h a s i s added.) show that the underlying h a d no knowledge the p r i o r offense burglary of rape. of the underlying 76 Any conviction claim offense that i s not CR-08-0670 supported by t h e r e c o r d o f D a n i e l ' s t r i a l . 1 3 Counsel was i n p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e c a s e - a c t i o n summary, t h e c o m p l a i n t , a n d t h e i n d i c t m e n t r e l a t e d t o t h e p r i o r o f f e n s e and d i d o b j e c t t o t h e admission o f t h e b u r g l a r y c o n v i c t i o n on o t h e r grounds. The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n R o m p i l l a h e l d t h a t i t was ineffective assistance p e n a l t y phase o f R o m p i l l a ' s his prior of counsel capital trial c o n v i c t i o n the State r e l y on a t t h e s e n t e n c i n g f o r counsel a t the t o not i n v e s t i g a t e of Pennsylvania intended to hearing. "The Supreme C o u r t n o t e d t h a t i t s h o l d i n g was due, i n p a r t , t o t h e f a c t t h a t c o u n s e l was aware t h a t t h e Commonwealth i n t e n d e d t o s e e k t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y b y r e l y i n g s o l e l y on t h e a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e t h a t the defendant had a s i g n i f i c a n t h i s t o r y of f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g t h e use o f v i o l e n c e , t h a t t h e Commonwealth i n t e n d e d t o r e l y on a p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n for r a p e a n d a s s a u l t , a n d t h a t t h e Commonwealth intended to introduce the t r a n s c r i p t of the v i c t i m ' s t e s t i m o n y t o show t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s v i o l e n t n a t u r e . " D a v i s v. S t a t e , 9 So. 3d 539, 567 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . In conclusion, of the Rompilla's p r i o r Rompilla Court noted that the conviction contained a v e r i t a b l e file cornucopia R u l e 32 c o u n s e l s t a t e d a t a s t a t u s h e a r i n g t h a t he was unable t o secure a t r a n s c r i p t of the g u i l t y - p l e a c o l l o q u y f o r Daniel's p r i o r burglary conviction. 1 3 77 CR-08-0670 of potential childhood and Unlike information mitigating mental Daniel e x i s t e d i n the Also, concerning Rompilla's illness. Rompilla, conviction. evidence did file in this not plead that from D a n i e l ' s case the any prior S t a t e d i d not such burglary emphasize t h e p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n n o r i n t r o d u c e any e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g prior conviction. Rompilla. could This case i s f a c t u a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from G i v e n t h a t c o u n s e l was c o n v i c t i o n and have a the State, 962 to plead attempted So. offense 2d 272 sufficient burglary rape, counsel not call further introducing specific details to conviction. ( A l a . C r i m . App. See 2005). f a c t s to support a Rompilla R u l e 3 2 . 7 ( d ) , A l a . R. Crim. burglary was strategic decision a t t e n t i o n t o t h a t c o n v i c t i o n by about aware o f t h e p r i o r t h a t the u n d e r l y i n g made the Burgess Daniel v. failed claim. See P. M. Daniel argues p e n a l t y p h a s e was that counsel's closing argument at the deficient. In r e g a r d to t h i s c l a i m , the S t a t e a s s e r t e d the f o l l o w i n g i n i t s motion to dismiss: "[Counsel] faced a daunting task defending Daniel. The j u r y f o u n d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e doubt 78 CR-08-0670 t h a t D a n i e l h a d m u r d e r e d two p e o p l e s i m p l y b e c a u s e one o f them made a c o u p l e o f comments t h a t D a n i e l apparently found o f f e n s i v e . I t was a l s o p r o v e n beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt t h a t D a n i e l committed t h e m u r d e r s w h i l e he was on p r o b a t i o n f o r o t h e r f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n s a n d a f t e r he h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f a felony i n v o l v i n g violence or the threat of violence to another person. D a n i e l does n o t s t a t e i n h i s s e c o n d amended p e t i t i o n what c o n c l u d i n g statement [ c o u n s e l ] c o u l d have made d u r i n g t h e p e n a l t y p h a s e t h a t w o u l d have b e e n so c o m p e l l i n g i t c o u l d have c a u s e d a m a j o r i t y o f t h e j u r o r s t o recommend he be sentenced t o anything l e s s than death." (C.R. 521.) could have Daniel made failed that to plead would have argument resulted prejudiced; thus, he f a i l e d t o c o m p l y w i t h R u l e 32.6, A l a . R. or how he was last argues his claim 14 Daniel dismissing ineffective. was case different recommendation P. this in a counsel sentencing Crim. in what that that Specifically, the c i r c u i t his Daniel court appellate pleaded that erred counsel in was h i s counsel i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g t o r a i s e t h e above numerous claims D a n i e l a l s o argues t h a t c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e a t t h e p e n a l t y phase o f h i s c a p i t a l t r i a l f o r the above-stated r e a s o n s . T h i s c l a i m a p p e a r s t o be a r e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e above arguments. 1 4 79 CR-08-0670 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 n the motion f o r a new trial. In t h i s s e c t i o n o f D a n i e l ' s p e t i t i o n he a s s e r t s what counsel presented a t t h e m o t i o n f o r a new then a laundry merely lists b e e n p r e s e n t e d by new comply with 32.6(b), the Ala. list counsel. full-fact R. Crim. hearing of claims t h a t should and have Clearly, this claim failed pleading P., trial new requirements therefore, i t was of to Rule correctly dismissed. M o r e o v e r , o u r r e c o r d s o f D a n i e l ' s d i r e c t a p p e a l show t h a t trial counsel c o u n s e l was his was allowed appointed trial t h e m o t i o n f o r a new trial as withdraw i n May 2003 and complete. and on a p p e a l . New counsel This Court did not d e n i e d by t h e c i r c u i t of the motion h e a r i n g . the new h e a r i n g was A f t e r i t was receive after c o u r t at the c o n c l u s i o n continued s e v e r a l times, h e l d on S e p t e m b e r 11, 2003. record. At the h e a r i n g , A l s o , c o u n s e l d i d n o t a s s e r t any 80 was the c o u n s e l i n d i c a t e d t h a t he had p a r t o f t h e r e c o r d , b u t the e n t i r e on filed i n June 2003, b e f o r e t h e r e c o r d t r a n s c r i p t o f D a n i e l ' s t r i a l u n t i l S e p t e m b e r 22, 2003 -t h e m o t i o n was new to represent Daniel for h i s hearing m o t i o n f o r a new certified to not grounds CR-08-0670 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 n h i s w r i t t e n motion f o r a new trial. I t was only a t the motion hearing, after q u e s t i o n i n g by t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , t h a t newly a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l stated that t r i a l c o u n s e l s h o u l d have p r e s e n t e d t h e t e s t i m o n y of S p e n c e r S i m s , t h e s t e p f a t h e r o f one o f t h e v i c t i m s , t h a t he did n o t w i s h D a n i e l t o be s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h a n d t h e t e s t i m o n y of Daniel's s i s t e r at the sentencing hearing before the jury. Counsel also indicated supplement t h i s the motion that he reserved his argument; however, t h e c i r c u i t right court to denied at the conclusion of the hearing. G i v e n t h e t i m e c o n s t r a i n t s a n d t h e f a c t t h a t c o u n s e l was dealing with a complicated could not reasonably trial c o u n s e l was i n e f f e c t i v e hearing. "'Claims 13 So. 3d been expected from 997, case, counsel that h i s f o r a new assistance of counsel the t r i a l 1020 new t o argue a t the motion of i n e f f e c t i v e r a r e l y be d e t e r m i n e d State, have death-penalty trial can r e c o r d a l o n e , ' " Hyde v. ( A l a . Crim. App. 2007), but require investigation. The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t i n Ex p a r t e I n g r a m , 675 So. 2d 863 ( A l a . 1996), "When assistance reasonably w i t h i n the stated: a d e f e n d a n t makes a c l a i m o f i n e f f e c t i v e o f t r i a l c o u n s e l , and t h a t c l a i m cannot be p r e s e n t e d i n a new t r i a l m o t i o n f i l e d 30 d a y s a l l o w e d b y R u l e 2 4 . 1 ( b ) , A l a . R. 81 CR-08-0670 C r i m . P., t h e p r o p e r method f o r p r e s e n t i n g t h a t c l a i m f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w i s t o f i l e a R u l e 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief." 675 So. 2d ineffective at 865; (emphasis for failing to added). raise Counsel the extensive was not claims of i n e f f e c t i v e assistance of counsel that postconviction counsel, w i t h h i s t i m e and r e s o u r c e s , r a i s e d Crim. 493, P., p e t i t i o n . 499 (Ala. See a l s o 1 5 S t a t e v. H a m l e t , C r i m . App. 2005) the need f o r f l e x i b i l i t y i n h i s Rule ("This 32, A l a . R. 913 So. 2d C o u r t has r e c o g n i z e d i n c o n s i d e r i n g c l a i m s s u c h as t h e one presented here."). F o r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we a f f i r m summarily dismissal the c i r c u i t of Daniel's p e t i t i o n court's for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED. Windom, K e l l u m , B u r k e , and J o i n e r , J J . , concur. We may affirm a circuit court's ruling on a p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n i f i t i s c o r r e c t f o r any r e a s o n . See Lee v. S t a t e , 44 So. 3d 1145, 1149 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . 15 82

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.