155 So. 3d 304
Ala. Crim. App.2013Background
- William L. Burnett was convicted (June 5, 2001) of five counts of first‑degree robbery arising from a single store robbery; he received multiple life sentences and did not appeal.
- In February 2013 Burnett filed a Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition asserting (1) double‑jeopardy violation because all charges arose from one transaction involving employees of the robbed business, and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for advising him to plead guilty despite the double‑jeopardy problem.
- The State moved to dismiss, arguing Alabama law permits multiple convictions when multiple victims are injured and that the ineffective‑assistance claim was successive, time‑barred, and meritless.
- The circuit court summarily denied relief: it held multiple robbery convictions were permissible because Burnett stole from four individuals and the business, found Burnett’s ineffective‑assistance claim failed Strickland prejudice and Rule 32.6(b) specificity requirements, and noted the claim was time‑barred.
- On appeal the court agreed multiple convictions are generally allowed for a single transaction involving multiple victims, but identified a double‑jeopardy problem where the same individual victim (Edna Newton) and the business were each charged for theft arising from the same act.
- The appellate court remanded with directions to vacate one of the convictions that duplicated the robbery of Edna Newton, because a robbery is a crime against a person and one theft cannot support two robbery convictions as to the same person from the same conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether multiple robbery convictions from one transaction violate double jeopardy | Burnett: five convictions from one robbery (employees of same business) constitute a single transaction so double jeopardy bars multiple punishments | State: Alabama permits multiple convictions when multiple victims are injured; Burnett admittedly stole from multiple victims and the business | Multiple convictions for separate victims are permitted, but conviction cannot duplicate robbery of the same person and the business for the same theft; one of the Edna Newton‑related convictions must be vacated |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for advising guilty plea despite alleged double‑jeopardy issue | Burnett: counsel knew of double‑jeopardy issue but still advised plea | State: claim is meritless, successive/time‑barred, and lacks factual specificity and prejudice | Denied—Burnett failed to allege prejudice under Strickland/Hill and the claim was time‑barred and procedurally deficient |
| Whether the Rule 32 petition could be summarily dismissed | Burnett: appellate review of denial | State/Court: petition fails to state a claim or is precluded so summary dismissal appropriate under Rule 32.7(d) | Summary dismissal appropriate where no material issue of fact/law exists and claims are precluded or insufficiently pleaded |
| Remedy for duplicative conviction | Burnett: sought relief vacating sentences as excessive/illegal | State: generally opposed duplicative relief except where double jeopardy compels it | Court remanded to vacate one of the convictions duplicating robbery of Edna Newton |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective‑assistance Strickland deficiency and prejudice test)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice in guilty‑plea context requires reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, petitioner would not have pleaded guilty)
- Brooks v. State, 973 So.2d 380 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (Alabama permits multiple convictions when a single transaction involves multiple victims)
- McKinney v. State, 511 So.2d 220 (Ala. 1987) (adopts majority rule allowing multiple convictions for multiple victims in one transaction)
- Craig v. State, 893 So.2d 1250 (Ala.Crim.App.2004) (conviction for robbing same person and business for same theft violates double jeopardy)
- Strickland v. State, 92 So.3d 179 (Ala.Crim.App.2011) (addresses duplicative robbery convictions/double‑jeopardy issues)
- Culver v. State, 549 So.2d 568 (Ala.Crim.App.1989) (guilty‑plea ineffective‑assistance precedent applying Hill standard)