Perkins v. State, 144 So. 3d 457

Perkins, a death-row inmate, seeks postconviction relief under Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., challenging his capital-murder conviction and death sentence.
In 1994 Perkins was convicted of kidnapping and murdering Cathy Gilliam during a kidnapping in the first degree; the jury recommended death by 10–2, and the circuit court imposed death.
On remand after Atkins v. Virginia, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed Perkins’s death sentence; certiorari was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court, and judgment became final.
In 2004 Perkins filed a 372-page Rule 32 petition; amendments followed in 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2009, with numerous extraordinary petitions filed during the pendency.
The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing in 2008–2009, denying relief on all claims; Perkins appealed to this court.
This appeal addresses Brady, Napue/Giglio, ineffective assistance of counsel, mitigation, juror issues, and discovery determinations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady disclosure of impeachment evidence	Perkins contends Candace Gilliam’s videotaped statement was suppressed; it would impeach the stipulated testimony.	State argues the tape was not disclosed due to non-disclosure not being material; Brady requires materiality.	No Brady violation; not newly discovered; not material to outcome.
Use of false testimony (Giglio/Napue)	Perkins alleges the State knowingly used false testimony about what Candace would say.	No evidence that the stipulated testimony was actually false.	No Giglio/Napue violation; insufficient showing of false, material testimony.
Ineffective assistance—voir dire and juror bias	Counsel failed to strike biased jurors and to preserve for-cause challenges.	Counsel’s voir dire decisions were strategic; no showing of actual bias by jurors.	No deficient performance; no prejudice under Strickland; claims rejected.
Failure to request limiting instruction on collateral acts	Counsel should have requested a limiting instruction to curtail collateral rape evidence.	Not requesting was a strategic choice; evidence used to bolster defense.	No error; strategic choice; no prejudice shown.
Mitigation investigation/presentation	Counsel failed to investigate or present additional mitigation evidence.	Relying on retained experts; presenting mitigation was a strategic, non-prejudicial choice.	No ineffective-assistance; mitigation evidence largely cumulative and not prejudicial.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (Supreme Court, 1963) (favorable evidence required to be disclosed when material)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (Supreme Court, 1985) (materiality standard for Brady claims; reasonable probability of different outcome)
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (Supreme Court, 1959) (false testimony due process violation when material to guilt/penalty)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (Supreme Court, 1972) (materiality and impeachment evidence standard; knowing use of false testimony)
Williams v. Griswold, 743 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir., 1984) (standard for proving Giglio violation; focus on credibility evidence)
Burgess v. State, 962 So.2d 272 (Ala. Crim. App., 2005) (courts defer to trial strategy decisions; not deficient performance here)
Barker v. Barrow, 290 Ga. 711 (Ga. 2012) (reasonable investigation of prior convictions; not per se requirement to challenge collateral convictions)
Ex parte Apicella, 809 So.2d 865 (Ala. 2001) (juror misconduct, extraneous material; delineates prejudice standard)