144 So. 3d 410
Ala. Crim. App.2012Background
- Musgrove, on death row, challenges a Jefferson Circuit Court ruling denying postconviction relief under Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P.
- He was convicted in 1988 of capital murder during a burglary alongside Rogers; trial involved joint prosecution and eventual death sentences.
- On direct appeal this Court reversed, then the Alabama Supreme Court reversed our judgment; on remand we affirmed both convictions and sentences.
- Musgrove filed multiple amended Rule 32 petitions; an evidentiary hearing occurred in 2006; Judge Garrett denied relief in 2008.
- Key issues involve newly discovered evidence, Brady claims, trial consolidation with Rogers, and ineffective assistance of counsel; multiple claims were found procedurally barred or meritless.
- The court affirmed the Rule 32 petition denial, concluding no grounds for relief were proven.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Newly discovered evidence standard | Musgrove contends new evidence meets Rule 32.1(e) criteria and warrants relief. | State argues claims fail Rule 32.1(e)(1)-(5) and are often precluded or immaterial; several are barred. | No relief; claims fail Rule 32.1(e) requirements; evidence not newly discovered or material. |
| Brady/pretrial evidence and identifications | State suppressed exculpatory/impeachment material (Dunlap, Barron lineup) and improper identifications. | Many Brady claims were procedurally barred; some evidence was known or impeachment, not favorable to relief. | Brady claims rejected; several are procedurally barred; no demonstrable Brady violation warranting relief. |
| Consolidation of Musgrove with Rogers for trial | Consolidation was improper and prejudicial; created risk of improper use of confession-related evidence. | Consolidation was proper; invited error doctrine applies; no abuse of discretion. | Consolidation proper; no abuse of discretion; any claimed error invited by Musgrove. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Driskill and Pickard failed to effectively represent Musgrove; numerous specific failures alleged. | Court found defense counsel's performance did not fall below objective standard; strategic decisions reasonable. | No relief; no ineffective assistance proven; findings supported by record. |
| Ring v. Arizona and death-penalty framework | Ring violation alleged; trial did not align with modern capital sentencing safeguards. | Claim not preserved; jury verdict and aggravators satisfied; no Ring violation. | Not properly before the Court; no Ring violation; procedurally barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. State, 630 So.2d 78 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991) (consolidation and related issues raised on direct appeal)
- Ex parte Rogers, 630 So.2d 88 (Ala. 1992) (supreme court reversal on remand)
- Musgrove v. State, 638 So.2d 1347 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993) (affirmation after remand)
- Ex parte Musgrove, 638 So.2d 1360 (Ala. 1994) (certiorari denied)
- Ex parte Loggins, 771 So.2d 1093 (Ala. 2000) (admissibility standard for postconviction evidence)
- McWhorter v. State, 142 So.3d 1195 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011) (newly discovered evidence Brady claims; Rule 32.1(e) guidance)