Moody v. State, 95 So. 3d 827

Moody was convicted in 1996 of two counts of capital murder for the 1989 pipe-bomb murder of Judge Robert S. Vance; he represented himself at trial and was sentenced to death for the capital-murder counts and life imprisonment for the assault.
This Court affirmed Moody’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal; certiorari was denied by the Alabama Supreme Court and later by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Moody timely filed a Rule 32 postconviction petition in 2005, later filing multiple amended petitions; counsel was appointed and later replaced during the proceedings.
The circuit court granted a summary dismissal of Moody’s Rule 32 petition and amendments; Moody appeals challenging the preclusion defenses, pleading sufficiency, and various ineffective-assistance claims.
The court applied Rule 32 preclusions (32.2(a)(3) and (a)(5)) to bar certain claims that could have been raised earlier, and addressed pleading sufficiency under Rules 32.3 and 32.6(b).
The court also analyzed a claim of newly discovered evidence under Rule 32.1(e) and concluded Moody failed to plead all required elements; other claims were deemed precluded or inadequately pleaded, leading to affirmed dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pretrial counsel IAC claims are precluded	Moody argues pretrial IAC claims are not barred by 32.2(a)(3)/(a)(5).	State argues these claims could have been raised at trial and on appeal; thus precluded.	Precluded; summary dismissal proper.
Appellate counsel IAC and related claims	Gardner ineffective for not raising venue, voir dire, prosecutorial misconduct, Brady, and cumulative claims.	Claims were insufficiently pleaded or precluded; no relief on appeal.	Summary dismissal proper; claims insufficiently pleaded or precluded.
Newly discovered evidence claim	Rule 32.1(e) establishes innocence or new facts not known earlier; seeks relief.	Claim not pleaded with required specificity and elements; lacks facts.	Summary dismissal proper; failed to plead all five elements.
Whether remaining claims were properly precluded or pleaded	Other claims by Moody deserve relief; lacks explanation of why not precluded.	Claims are precluded or not properly pleaded under Rule 32; no relief.	All remaining claims properly dismissed.

Ex parte White, 792 So.2d 1097 (Ala. 2001) (de novo review when facts undisputed in Rule 32 proceedings)
McNabb v. State, 991 So.2d 313 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (affirmative defenses preclusion and pleading standards applicable on appeal)
Ex parte Ingram, 675 So.2d 863 (Ala. 1996) (standard for claiming ineffective assistance and procedural path for Rule 32)
Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2003) (ineffective-assistance claims; forum for review varies by context)
Wilkerson v. State, 70 So.3d 442 (Ala.Crim.App.2011) (pretrial-ineffective-assistance claims, timing and procedure)
Ex parte Harris, 947 So.2d 1139 (Ala. 2005) (procedural bar where pretrial-ineffectiveness could have been raised earlier)
Jones v. State, 816 So.2d 1067 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (standards for appellate ineffective-assistance review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
Ex parte Jackson, 48 So.3d 100 (Ala. 2004) (contextual background leading to Ingram's approach to post-conviction relief)
Ex parte Clemons, 55 So.3d 348 (Ala. 2007) (pleading burdens and preclusion considerations in Rule 32)