387 So.3d 213
Ala. Crim. App.2022Background
- In December 2008 Connie Wheat was shot and an arson was set at his store; police recovered a .38 handgun, matches, gasoline residue, struck matches, and Wimbley made inculpatory statements to law enforcement admitting shooting Wheat and pouring a gasoline mixture in the store.
- Wimbley and co-defendant Crayton were tried for two counts of capital murder (during robbery and during arson); a jury convicted Wimbley and recommended death; the trial court imposed death sentences.
- On direct appeal this Court affirmed; the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and remanded in light of Hurst, this Court again affirmed, and the Alabama Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court later denied further certiorari.
- Wimbley filed a Rule 32 petition alleging numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (guilt, penalty, and sentencing phases), a Brady (failure-to-disclose) claim about a State witness, a claim that he is severely mentally ill such that execution would be unconstitutional, and requests for funding for experts.
- The circuit court denied funding requests and summarily dismissed the amended Rule 32 petition as precluded, insufficiently pleaded, or meritless (often noting claims were addressed on direct appeal or refuted by the trial record).
- The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the summary dismissal, applying Strickland standards, Rule 32 pleading and preclusion rules, and prior direct-appeal holdings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guilt-phase IAC (pretrial mental evaluation; failure to object to prosecutor remarks; failure to investigate/ present experts; failure to impeach witnesses) | Trial counsel acted unreasonably (ordered NGRI evaluation without investigation; missed objections; failed to investigate suspects/experts; failed to impeach) | Claims were inadequately pleaded, speculative, refuted by the record (counsel consulted Wimbley and moved for competency), or the underlying trial rulings were already found proper/harmless on direct appeal | Summary dismissal affirmed: pleading defects or no Strickland prejudice/merit |
| Juror selection / for-cause strikes | Counsel failed to strike biased veniremembers tied to victim, prosecutor’s office, or witnesses | Many of the juror challenges were raised on direct appeal and rejected; counsel not ineffective for failing to raise baseless objections | Dismissed: direct-appeal holdings and insufficient prejudice/pleading |
| Penalty-phase IAC (failure to investigate and present mitigation) | Counsel failed to discover and present extensive family-history and abuse mitigation (multi‑generational incest, mental‑health history, addiction, etc.) | Petitioner failed to identify witnesses, evidence, or availability; some mitigation allegations cumulative to trial evidence; presentation of additional mitigation at sentencing was limited by controlling Alabama law | Dismissed for insufficient pleading and for lack of merit given legal constraints |
| Brady / nondisclosure re: witness Barbara Washington | State suppressed impeachment evidence (alleged boyfriend had criminal case dismissed after her testimony) that would impeach a key ID witness | Allegation is speculative, pleaded "upon information and belief," and petitioner failed to plead when he learned of the alleged evidence or identify specific facts | Dismissed: speculative / insufficiently pleaded Brady claim |
| Eighth Amendment claim — severely mentally ill cannot be executed | Evolving standards bar executing persons who are severely mentally ill (analogue to Roper/Panetti/Atkins) | Claim is non‑jurisdictional and precluded because it could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal; petitioner failed to plead specific diagnosis or show incompetency/insanity | Dismissed: precluded under Rule 32.2 and insufficiently pleaded; no Eighth Amendment bar shown |
| Funding for experts & cumulative-prejudice claim | Requested funds to develop mental‑health and expert testimony; cumulative errors deprived him of fair trial | Funding requests not supported; most underlying claims waived, insufficiently pleaded, or meritless; cumulative‑effect analysis applies only to properly pleaded claims | Funding denied and cumulative‑prejudice claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes performance-and-prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92 (addressed capital sentencing procedure; occasioned remand on direct appeal)
- Ex parte Hinton, 172 So. 3d 348 (Ala. 2012) (de novo review applies when circuit court decision rests on the cold trial record)
- Wimbley v. State, 191 So. 3d 176 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014) (prior direct-appeal disposition of many trial issues relied on in Rule 32 review)
- Hyde v. State, 950 So. 2d 344 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) (pleading standards for ineffective-assistance claims under Rule 32)
- Boyd v. State, 746 So. 2d 364 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999) (limits on presenting additional mitigation at judicial sentencing)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (Eighth Amendment precedent referenced in evolving-standards/mental‑illness arguments)
- Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (competency-to-be‑executed standard under the Eighth Amendment)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (bar on executing intellectually disabled persons)
- Madison v. Alabama, 139 S. Ct. 718 (addressed execution of severely mentally impaired individuals)