Smith v. State
71 So. 3d 12
Ala. Crim. App.2011Background
- Smith was convicted of capital murder for killing Durk Van Dam during a robbery in 1997 and sentenced to death after a jury recommended death 11–1.
- Direct appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence; postconviction Rule 32 petition filed in 2002 initially dismissed as untimely, later deemed timely by the Alabama Supreme Court and remanded.
- On remand, Smith amended petitions in 2004 and 2005; circuit court dismissed in 2005; appeal pursued as an out-of-time challenge to the first petition’s denial.
- The court summarized trial evidence: extensive blunt-force injuries to Van Dam; Smith gave statements admitting planning a robbery and involvement; witnesses described Smith’s actions and consciousness of guilt.
- This postconviction ruling addresses Smith’s claims of mental retardation, ineffective assistance of counsel, and various procedurally barred or meritless grounds, ultimately affirming dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith adequately pleaded mental retardation under Atkins framework | Smith is mentally retarded under Perkins and Atkins, IQ 70 or below with adaptive deficits. | Smith failed to plead subaverage functioning or adaptive deficits and did not plead IQ of 70 or less; evidence did not show Perkins criteria. | Denied; pleading deficient and record refutes Atkins criteria |
| Whether Smith received ineffective assistance of counsel in trial and penalty phases | Counsel’s performance deficient in numerous ways, including investigation, witness handling, and strategy. | Petitioner failed to plead with specificity; many claims lack factual detail; existing trial record supports counsel’s decisions. | Denied; claims not plead with required specificity or merit |
| Whether Batson claim and sufficiency claims are procedurally barred | Battled potential racial discrimination in juror strikes and sufficiency challenges on appeal. | Procedurally barred under Rule 32.6(b) and related authorities since not timely raised with proper specifics. | Batson and sufficiency claims barred |
| Whether Ring/Apprendi/Brady claims were properly considered or barred | Ring/Apprendi regarding sentencing factors and Brady regarding exculpatory evidence. | Retroactivity and procedural bars apply; no new evidence; claims barred or meritless. | Procedurally barred; no Ring or Brady error established on postconviction review |
| Whether juror-misconduct claims and other procedural bars were properly dismissed | Juror-questions and extraneous information warrant relief. | Claims inadequately pleaded; procedural bars apply; no new facts to justify relief. | Dismissed as procedurally barred or inadequately pleaded |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (holds death penalty unconstitutional for mentally retarded defendants)
- Ex parte Perkins, 851 So.2d 453 (Ala. 2002) (defines Alabama mental-retardation standard (IQ, adaptive functioning, onset before 18))
- Ex parte Dobyne, 805 So.2d 763 (Ala. 2001) (abuse-of-discretion standard in postconviction review of death sentences)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes deficient-performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
- Ex parte Taylor, 10 So.3d 1075 (Ala. 2005) (plain-error vs. prejudice distinction in Strickland not automatically dispositive)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibits racial exclusion of jurors in voir dire)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (jury must find any fact increasing punishment beyond statutory maximum)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (extends jury truthfinding to facts increasing punishment)
- Ex parte Waldrop, 859 So.2d 1181 (Ala. 2002) (Ring rules not retroactive to final direct-review cases)
- Williams v. State, 782 So.2d 811 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000) (procedural bar for Brady claim lacking newly discovered evidence basis)