Hinton v. State
172 So. 3d 348
Ala.2012Background
- Hinton petitioned § Rule 32, alleging his trial counsel failed to procure a qualified firearms-identification expert.
- Circuit court denied relief, finding Payne qualified to testify as a firearms-identification expert.
- Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed after remand that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion.
- Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the standard of review applied by the Court of Criminal Appeals.
- Court held that the circuit court relied on the cold trial record, requiring de novo review; reversed and remanded for de novo consideration of Payne’s qualification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for Rule 32 findings | Hinton argues de novo review; abuse standard misapplies Strickland. | Crim.App applied abuse-of-discretion review to findings. | De novo review required. |
| Whether Payne was qualified as firearms-identification expert | Payne was not a qualified firearms-identification expert. | Payne was qualified based on experience and training. | Remand for independent de novo findings on Payne's qualification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (established standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Ex parte Hinton, 172 So.3d 332 (Ala. 2008) (requires specific findings on expert qualification under Rule 32.9)
- Hinton v. State, 172 So.3d 249 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) (Rule 32 petition affirmed/denied and remanded for findings)