Hinton v. State
172 So. 3d 355
Ala. Crim. App.2013Background
- Hinton was convicted of two counts of capital murder in 1986 and sentenced to death; convictions and sentence affirmed on direct appeal.
- In 1990, Hinton filed a Rule 32 petition alleging, among other things, ineffective assistance for not hiring a qualified firearms-identification expert.
- A circuit court denied the petition in 2005, adopting findings that trial counsel’s use of Andrew Payne as an expert defense witness was adequate.
- The Alabama Supreme Court remanded to determine whether Payne was an actually qualified firearms-identification expert; subsequent remands upheld Payne’s qualifications, which this Court affirmed, then the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for de novo review.
- United States Supreme Court (2014) held that counsel’s failure to seek additional funding to hire a better expert, given removal of the cap, was deficient performance, and remanded to assess prejudice under Strickland; the circuit court subsequently held prejudice existed and granted relief, making the appeal moot.
- On return to the third remand, the circuit court found prejudice and granted the Rule 32 petition; the Alabama Supreme Court later dismissed the appeal as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prejudice under Strickland after funding-cap removal | Hinton argues the trial counsel’s failure to obtain a more qualified expert prejudiced him. | State contends Payne’s testimony and qualifications were sufficient; prejudice depends on Payne’s qualifications per the record. | Remand to make specific prejudice findings required. |
| Standard of review for expert qualification on remand | Hinton argues de novo review is required given Supreme Court remands. | State contends appellate review suffices under the post-remand framework. | Remand instructed to apply proper de novo review. |
| Whether Payne was actually a qualified firearms-identification expert | Hinton argues Payne was not qualified by knowledge, skill, training, or experience. | State argues Payne was qualified under the record. | Court remanded to determine qualifications with specificity. |
| Remand procedure and scope | Remand should allow further findings or evidence on prejudice. | Remand should follow Supreme Court directives, with written findings. | Remand with directions for written findings and possible additional evidentiary proceedings. |
| Final disposition on appeal after relief granted | Relief granted on remand should result in ongoing remedy rather than dismissal as moot. | Because relief was granted, the appeal is moot and should be dismissed. | Appeal dismissed as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hinton v. State, 172 So.3d 249 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) (Rule 32 petition affirmed; trial counsel not prejudicially ineffective.)
- Ex parte Hinton, 172 So.3d 332 (Ala.2008) (Remand for specific Rule 32.9 findings on Payne's qualifications.)
- Hinton v. State, 172 So.3d 338 (Ala.Crim.App.2011) (Affirmed Payne qualified; no abuse of discretion.)
- Hinton v. State, 172 So.3d 355 (Ala.Crim.App.2013) (De novo review on remand found Payne qualified.)
- Ex parte Hinton, 172 So.3d 348 (Ala.2012) (Supreme Court remanded for de novo prejudice review.)
- Hinton v. Alabama, 571 U.S. - (2014) (Court held deficient performance for not raising funding issue; required prejudice inquiry.)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (Two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel.)