Reeves v. State
226 So. 3d 711
Ala. Crim. App.2016Background
- Reeves was convicted in 1998 of capital murder (robbery–murder) and sentenced to death after a 10–2 jury recommendation; convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal and certiorari was denied.
- Reeves filed a timely Rule 32 petition (second amended petition in 2006) asserting, inter alia, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, juror misconduct, Atkins intellectual-disability claim, and an Eighth Amendment challenge to lethal injection.
- The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing in 2006 (Reeves presented two witnesses; State presented one); court issued an order denying relief in 2009 (parties were not notified until 2013); Reeves was granted an out-of-time appeal in 2014.
- The Atkins claim centered on IQ scores (full-scale scores of 68, 71, and 73 across tests), disputed application of the Flynn Effect and the standard error of measurement (SEM), and conflicting expert testimony about adaptive functioning (Dr. Goff for Reeves; Dr. King for State).
- Reeves alleged multiple ineffective-assistance claims (failure to hire/present neuropsychologist, inadequate mitigation investigation, failure to object to certain prosecutor arguments/evidence, and ineffective appellate-winnowing).
- Reeves alleged juror misconduct (unidentified juror communicated with husband/media, privately spoke to another juror who changed a vote, and intimidated jurors); the trial court summarily dismissed those claims on procedural preclusion grounds but the appellate court reviewed pleading sufficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court’s verbatim adoption of State’s proposed order (as to Atkins claim) | Adoption of State language shows lack of independent judicial consideration; requires reversal. | Adoption of proposed findings is permissible; findings are those of the court unless record shows the order is not the product of the judge’s independent judgment. | No error — adoption of portion of State’s proposed order did not demonstrate lack of independent judgment. |
| Atkins (intellectual disability) — intellectual-functioning prong | Reeves argued IQ scores (68, 71, 73), adjusted for SEM and Flynn Effect, show significantly subaverage functioning. | State argued court could reject Flynn Effect, consider whole record and expert conflict; IQ scores/achievement and conduct support borderline, not disabled. | Court did not abuse discretion — Reeves failed to prove significantly subaverage intellectual functioning. Court permissibly rejected Flynn Effect application and considered SEM as a range. |
| Atkins — adaptive-functioning prong | Reeves relied on ABAS/ABS-RC-II scores showing deficits in multiple domains (Dr. Goff). | State’s expert (Dr. King) presented conflicting standardized scores and pointed to evidence of adaptive skills (work, vocational certificates, drug enterprise, planning/cover-up of crime). | Court did not abuse discretion — substantial record support for finding Reeves lacked significant deficits in ≥2 adaptive areas. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel — various trial/appellate-phase complaints (experts, mitigation, objections, appellate issues) | Counsel failed to hire neuropsychologist, did inadequate mitigation investigation, failed to object to prosecutor conduct or raise issues on appeal. | Strategic choices about experts, witnesses, objections, and appellate issue selection are presumed reasonable; petitioner failed to call trial/appellate counsel to rebut presumption. | Denied — Reeves failed to overcome presumption of reasonable strategy (record silent because counsel not called); no Strickland relief. |
| Juror misconduct claims | Juror improperly communicated with husband/media, privately influenced another juror who changed vote, intimidated jurors — deprived Reeves of fair trial. | Claims were procedurally precluded or insufficiently pleaded; allegations concerned jury deliberations (protected) and juror identity/extraneous information were not specified. | Dismissal affirmed — petition failed pleading requirements (juror identity, specific extraneous information); allegations largely described internal deliberations, not admissible extraneous influence. |
| Eighth Amendment challenge to lethal injection | Reeves challenged constitutionality of lethal injection (drug protocol). | Trial counsel could not have anticipated Alabama’s change in method from electrocution to lethal injection; claim was not timely raised; specific protocol cited is outdated; current midazolam challenges not pled. | No relief — court erred to the extent it precluded the claim procedurally but petition failed pleading specificity and any challenge to Alabama’s current protocol was not raised below and is foreclosed by existing precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (Eighth Amendment bars executing intellectually disabled persons; left states to define clinical criteria)
- Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014) (IQ scores have SEM; scores within SEM require consideration of adaptive deficits; IQ is a range, not a fixed cutoff)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective-assistance claims: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Ex parte Perkins, 851 So.2d 453 (Ala. 2002) (Alabama’s broad Atkins definition: subaverage intellectual functioning, deficits in adaptive behavior, onset before 18)
- Ex parte Smith, 213 So.3d 214 (Ala. 2003) (Alabama precedent on Atkins factors and current-function requirement)
- Ledford v. Warden, 818 F.3d 600 (11th Cir. 2016) (SEM is bi-directional; consideration of SEM is a factual determination informed by expert testimony)