Clemons v. State
123 So. 3d 1
Ala. Crim. App.2012Background
- Clemons was convicted of capital murder in 1994 and sentenced to death; convictions and sentences were affirmed by the Alabama Courts in 1996 and 1998, with a certificate of judgment issued in 1998.
- Clemons filed a first Rule 32 petition around 1999–2000; circuit court summarily dismissed some claims and held hearings on others, ultimately denying relief on all claims.
- Clemons appealed to this Court; after briefing, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Atkins (2002) on mental retardation, prompting remand for factual findings on Clemons’s mental retardation claims.
- An evidentiary hearing found Clemons not mentally retarded, though in the borderline range of intellectual functioning.
- On Remand, this Court affirmed the circuit court’s determinations, including procedural bars under Rule 32.2(a) and (b) for the ineffective-assistance claims, which were later partially reversed by the Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Clemons (2007).
- On August 16, 2010, Clemons filed a successive Rule 32 petition alleging Tennard v. Dretke and Smith v. Texas as new-law grounds addressing mitigation for low IQ; the circuit court summarily dismissed as procedurally barred and untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clemons’s Tennard/Smith claim was procedurally barred | Clemons argues Tennard/Smith excused the bars | State argues Tennard/Smith did not create new law and was barred | Claim barred under Rule 32.2(a)(3)/(a)(5) and (b)/(c) |
| Whether Tennard/Smith created new law to excuse timing | Clemons claims new law allowed untimely, non‑precluded raising | State contends Tennard/Smith applied established law to new facts | Tennard/Smith did not create new law; claims barred as time-barred and successive |
| Whether Ex parte Clemons dictated law of the case regarding Tennard/Smith | Alabama Supreme Court’s dictum bound circuit court | Dictum not law of the case | Obiter dictum; not binding law of the case for this claim |
| Whether Rompilla is properly before the Court | Rompilla should be applied to Clemons’s claims | Rompilla not raised in Rule 32 petition; not properly before Court | Not properly before, no relief under Rompilla |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Clemons, 55 So.3d 348 (Ala.2007) (remanded for ineffective-assistance considerations; waivable Rule 32.2 defenses)
- Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (U.S. 2004) (discussed mitigation and Penry lineage; not new law for Clemons)
- Smith v. Texas, 543 U.S. 37 (U.S. 2004) (mitigation and Penry framework; not new law for Clemons)
- Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (U.S. 1989) (recognizes mitigating evidence may be considered)
- Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (U.S. 1978) (mitigating factors must be considered)
- Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1982) (mitigating evidence must be considered)
- Ex parte Linnell, 484 So.2d 455 (Ala.1986) (limit on raising issues for first time on appeal)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (mentally retarded defendants; mitigation considerations)
- Gray v. Reynolds, 553 So.2d 79 (Ala.1989) (law-of-the-case doctrine; dictum not binding)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (U.S. 2005) (ineffective assistance; not properly raised in petition)