196 So. 3d 285
Ala. Crim. App.2015Background
- In 1999 Charles Gregory Clark was convicted of capital murder (murder during robbery) and sentenced to death after an 11–1 jury recommendation; convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal and certiorari was denied.
- Clark filed a timely Rule 32 petition (postconviction) raising multiple claims, mainly ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; the circuit court held an evidentiary hearing in 2006 and issued denial in 2013.
- The underlying facts: Clark stabbed convenience-store owner William Ewing numerous times during a struggle; blood and DNA connected Clark to the victim; Clark admitted stabbing but claimed self-defense, cocaine intoxication/withdrawal, and that robbery was an afterthought.
- At trial defense presented insanity, self-defense/heat-of-passion, and lack-of-intent/afterthought robbery theories, and presented expert testimony about Clark’s cocaine addiction and mental state.
- On Rule 32 review Clark pursued claims that trial counsel unreasonably selected defense theories, failed to request a heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction, appellate counsel omitted meritorious issues, and counsel were ineffective during the penalty phase (closing, mitigation presentation, and sentencing memo).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel’s choice of guilt-phase defenses (insanity, self-defense, lack of intent) | Clark: counsel pursued weak, unsupported theories and should have focused on a lack-of-intent felony-murder theory (victim alive when Clark left) to avoid capital murder | State: counsel’s strategy was reasonable given overwhelming facts and Clark’s own statements; chosen theories were interrelated and aimed to avoid a death sentence | Court: Counsel’s choices were strategic and reasonable; Clark failed to prove deficiency or prejudice; claim denied |
| Failure to request heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction | Clark: evidence of struggle and victim being alive supported heat-of-passion instruction | State: only Clark’s self-serving statement supported it and physical evidence (stick placement) contradicted that claim | Court: no rational basis for instruction; trial counsel not deficient for not requesting it; claim denied |
| Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (failure to raise certain issues on direct appeal) | Clark: appellate counsel should have argued that the court adopted State-favoring evidence re: heat-of-passion and should have challenged denial of instruction on lack-of-intent robbery | State: Clark failed to call appellate counsel at Rule 32 hearing; briefs alone cannot prove deficient strategic reasoning | Court: Clark didn’t question appellate counsel; record silent as to counsel’s reasons; presumption of effectiveness stands; claim denied |
| Penalty-phase counsel effectiveness (objections, closing, mitigation presentation, sentencing memo) | Clark: counsel failed to object to prosecutor’s arguments on burden of proof, gave ineffective penalty closing, presented an inadequate mitigation case, and failed to prepare a legal memorandum for the judge | State: many of these claims were not presented at the Rule 32 hearing or were strategic; trial counsel did present mitigation evidence (drug history, remorse, family, work) and had a penalty strategy | Court: Clark abandoned or failed to prove many of these claims at hearing; where evidence existed counsel’s presentation was strategic; no deficiency or prejudice shown; claims denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1983) (appellate counsel not required to raise every nonfrivolous issue)
- Clark v. State, 896 So.2d 584 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000) (opinion on direct appeal setting out facts and prior holdings)
- Ex parte McWhorter, 781 So.2d 330 (Ala. 2000) (self-serving intoxication statements insufficient alone to require lesser-included instruction)
- Dobyne v. State, 805 So.2d 733 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000) (discussing Strickland standards and prejudice in capital cases)
- Williams v. State, 675 So.2d 537 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996) (discussion of heat-of-passion manslaughter and lesser-included offenses)