Broadnax v. State, 130 So. 3d 1232

Broadnax was convicted in 1997 of four counts of capital murder for the deaths of his wife and her four-year-old grandson and was sentenced to death after the jury recommended death.
This Rule 32 postconviction petition challenged various trial-counsel and evidentiary issues related to his guilt and penalty phases.
The circuit court denied several claims and held an evidentiary hearing on Broadnax’s second amended petition in 2011.
Broadnax argued the circuit court adopted the State’s proposed order verbatim; this issue was deemed not preserved for review.
Broadnax also challenged exclusion of hearsay mitigation evidence (Dr. Benedict’s testimony) at the Rule 32 hearing and asserted ineffective-assistance claims related to alibi investigation and for not obtaining a psychological mitigation evaluation.
The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of the Rule 32 petition, with application for rehearing denied and the December 14, 2012 opinion substituted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preservation of the order’s adoption	Broadnax argued the order reflected the State’s view and lacked independent judgment.	State contends the issue was not properly preserved for review.	Issue not preserved; review of this claim is barred.
Exclusion of Dr. Benedict hearsay at Rule 32 hearing	Hearsay mitigating statements were necessary for a complete defense and should have been admitted.	Alabama Rules of Evidence apply to Rule 32 proceedings; hearsay properly excluded.	Exclusion proper; no due-process violation; evidence properly excluded.
Alibi defense (9:00 p.m. work-release alibi) and counsel performance	Counsel failed to adequately investigate/allege alibi at 9:00 p.m. at the work-release facility.	Counsel reasonably investigated based on Broadnax’s statements and strategic judgment.	No deficient performance; no prejudice shown; claim denied.
Psychological evaluation for mitigation	A psychological evaluation would uncover mitigation evidence that could affect the penalty phase.	Counsel reasonably decided not to seek such an evaluation given lack of indicators of mental illness.	No deficient performance or prejudice; mitigation evidence would not have altered the death penalty outcome.

Ex parte White, 792 So.2d 1097 (Ala.2001) (de novo review when facts are undisputed; credibility determinations favored)
Ex parte Ingram, 51 So.3d 1119 (Ala.2010) (preservation and independent judgment concerns in Rule 32)
Waldrop v. State, 987 So.2d 1186 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (Rules of Evidence apply to Rule 32 hearings; hearsay excluded)
Cochran v. State, 548 So.2d 1062 (Ala.Crim.App.1989) (avoidance of mental-health evaluation unless warranted)
Ferrell v. Hall, 640 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir.2011) (counsel not ineffective for lacking mental-health evaluation under these facts)
Blanco v. Singletary, 943 F.2d 1477 (11th Cir.1991) (mitigation investigation not required where no signs of impairment)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S.1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance; reasonableness and prejudice)
Jones v. State, 753 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (reasonable investigation standard for defense strategy)