State of Alabama v. Emanuel Aaron Gissendanner, Jr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: March 8, 2019 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2018-2019 _________________________ CR-09-0998 _________________________ State of Alabama v. Emanuel Aaron Gissendanner, Jr. Appeal from Dale Circuit Court (CC-01-350.60) On Remand from the Alabama Supreme Court COLE, Judge. Emanuel Aaron Gissendanner, Jr., was convicted of two counts of capital murder for killing Margaret Snellgrove during the course of a kidnapping and a robbery, see §§ 13A-540(a)(1) and 13A-5-40(a)(2), and one count of possessing or CR-09-0998 uttering a forged check drawn on Snellgrove's bank account, see § 13A-9-6, Ala. Code 1975. death for the Gissendanner was sentenced to capital-murder convictions imprisonment for the forgery conviction. and to life This Court affirmed Gissendanner's convictions and sentences on direct appeal, Gissendanner v. State, 949 So. 2d 956 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006), and the Alabama Supreme Court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari. In August 2007, Gissendanner filed a timely Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief, challenging his convictions and sentences. In August 2009, the circuit court held an evidentiary hearing on Gissendanner's petition, and, on March 30, 2010, Gissendanner's petition. it issued an order granting In its order, the circuit court found that "Gissendanner had been denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel, and set aside his conviction and his sentence." The State appealed. On appeal, a majority of this Court held that "the circuit court erred in granting Gissendanner relief on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel," and remanded Gissendanner's case to the circuit court "for the limited 2 CR-09-0998 purpose of addressing Gissendanner's penalty-phase claims of ineffective assistance of counsel it ha[d] not already ruled on." State v. Gissendanner, [Ms. CR-09-0998, Oct. 23, 2015] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2015) (opinion on application for rehearing). On remand, the circuit court concluded that Gissendanner was not entitled to relief based on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that had not been previously addressed. ___ So. 3d at ___ (opinion on return to remand, Feb. 10, 2017). court's On return to remand, this Court affirmed "the circuit order on remand," reversed the "circuit court's original order granting Gissendanner's petition," and remanded Gissendanner's case to the circuit court "to reinstate Gissendanner's capital-murder conviction and his sentences of death." Id. Gissendanner then petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for certiorari review. On January 4, 2019, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed this Court's judgment "to the extent it reverse[d] [the circuit court's] order granting Gissendanner's petition for postconviction relief, and ... direct[ed] [this Court] to take the necessary action to reinstate [the circuit court's] order 3 CR-09-0998 granting Gissendanner a new trial." Ex parte Gissendanner, [Ms. 1160762, Jan. 4, 2019] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2019). In accordance with the direction of the Alabama Supreme Court, we affirm the original judgment of the circuit court granting Gissendanner's Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief and granting him a new trial. AFFIRMED. Kellum, McCool, and Minor, JJ., and Lyons, Special Judge,* concur. Windom, P.J., recuses herself. * Retired Associate Justice Champ Lyons, Jr., was appointed on October 3, 2014, to be a Special Judge in regard to this appeal. See § 12-3-17, Ala. Code 1975. 4
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.
