80 So. 3d 965
Ala. Crim. App.2011Background
- Ray, on death row for a 1995 capital murder during a rape and robbery, was convicted in 1999 by a jury (11–1) and sentenced to death; direct appeal affirmed.
- In 2003 Ray filed a Rule 32 petition in Dallas County; an evidentiary hearing led to a 107-page order denying relief.
- The circuit court quoted trial-record facts about Tiffany Harville’s murder and the codefendant Owden’s involvement, including alleged rape and stabbing.
- Ray challenged the circuit court’s procedure of adopting the State’s proposed order; the court addressed Ingram and related authorities to justify the adoption as not clearly erroneous.
- Ray asserted Brady violations based on allegedly exculpatory statements and materials; the court held the claims barred for lack of newly discovered evidence and found no suppression affecting the verdict.
- The court analyzed multiple ineffective-assistance claims (penalty and guilt phases), largely finding no prejudice under Strickland; it affirmed denial of postconviction relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adoption of the State’s proposed order | Ray argues the court’s verbatim adoption undermines independent findings. | Whatley/Taylor’s records show independent reasoning; Ingram cautions scrutiny. | Adoption proper; findings not clearly erroneous. |
| Brady/ newly discovered evidence | Ray contends suppressed exculpatory material; seeks Brady relief. | Claim barred absent newly discovered evidence; evidence not newly discovered. | Brady claim denied; no newly discovered-evidence basis. |
| Penalty-phase ineffective assistance | Counsel failed to pursue extensive mitigation (family history, mental health, experts). | Counsel conducted substantial investigation; decisions were reasonable strategy. | No prejudice; Ray failed to prove deficient performance and prejudice. |
| Guilt-phase ineffective assistance—specific subclaims | Multiple trial-city tactics (venue, expert testimony, admission of prior convictions) were deficient. | Most claims lacked record support or were strategic choices; no prejudice shown. | Claims denied; no relief warranted. |
| Exclusion of steroid-testimony expert | Dr. Pope’s testimony should be allowed to discuss steroid effects. | Insufficient evidence of steroid use; testimony not relevant. | Exclusion affirmed; testimony not shown to be necessary or admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (verbatim adoption and independent findings standards cautioned by Supreme Court)
- Bell v. State, 593 So.2d 123 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991) (verbatim adoption valid when not clearly erroneous)
- Hyde v. State, 950 So.2d 344 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) (upholds state-adopted orders with independent findings)
- McGahee v. State, 885 So.2d 191 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) (reaffirming independent-judgment principle in postconviction orders)
- Jones v. State, 450 So.2d 165 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983) (admissibility of prior capital-conviction evidence for aggravation)