Fondren v. Allen
1:08-cv-02089
| N.D. Ala. | Jun 27, 2011Background
- Fondren was convicted in Calhoun County, Alabama, on March 7, 2003, of capital murder by firing a rifle from a vehicle and sentenced to life without parole.
- The Alabama appellate courts denied direct appeal and post-conviction relief, with the Alabama Supreme Court issuing a certificate of judgment in 2004.
- Fondren filed a Rule 32 petition in 2005; after an evidentiary hearing the trial court denied relief; the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed in 2007 and the Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2008.
- Fondren asserted ineffective assistance of counsel for multiple trial failures, including jury instructions, experts, witness interviews, and prosecutorial conduct.
- This federal habeas corpus petition was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and was treated as a summary-dismissal matter under AEDPA standards.
- The magistrate judge recommends granting the respondents’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing Fondren’s petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to request/properly object to heat-of-passion element | Fondren: missing heat-of-passion element in capital murder instruction prejudiced defense. | State: instruction not required; no prejudice since provocation instructions given and no evidence of heat of passion. | Denied; no prejudice established under Strickland. |
| Failure to retain ballistics expert | Fondren: ballistics expert needed to support self-defense/provocation theories; door-open theory could have been developed. | State: Kilbourn’s testimony and trial investigation sufficed; no reasonable probability outcome would change with expert. | Denied; no reasonable probability that outcome would have differed. |
| Failure to interview law enforcement officers | Fondren: interviews could have undermined State’s theory; counsel abandoned this issue without evidence. | State: no evidence at Rule 32 hearing; any interviews would not have shown prejudice. | Denied; no prejudice shown and issue abandoned. |
| Prosecutor's improper conduct and closing | Fondren: prosecutorial misconduct and juror participation in closing; counsel failed to object. | State: claims were abandoned or unsupported by evidence; strategic decisions supported by record. | Denied; no actionable prejudice shown. |
| Other asserted trial-counsel deficiencies (subpoenas, conflicts, juror demonstrations) | Fondren alleges multiple additional failures (subpoena use, conflicts, juror demonstration). | State: findings supported by Rule 32 record; claims either abandoned or lacking prejudice. | Denied across asserted subclaims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (AEDPA standards; clearly established federal law)
- Putman v. Head, 268 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2001) (reasonableness of applying Supreme Court precedent)
- Armstead v. Scott, 37 F.3d 202 (5th Cir. 1994) (prejudice component and reasonable probability of different outcome)
- McNair v. Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2005) (presumed correctness of state-court factual findings; AEDPA standards)