Torrey Twane McNabb v. Commissioner Alabama Department of Corrections
727 F.3d 1334
11th Cir.2013Background
- In 1997 Torréy McNabb shot and killed Montgomery Police Officer Anderson Gordon and fired at two other men; he admitted the shootings but claimed cocaine-induced paranoia and partial self-defense as to one victim.
- A jury convicted McNabb of two counts of capital murder and related attempted murder charges; jury recommended death 10–2 and court imposed death sentence.
- State courts affirmed convictions and sentence on direct appeal and denied Rule 32 post-conviction relief; the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- McNabb filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court denied relief and denied a Rule 59(e) motion but granted a certificate of appealability on issues raised in the Rule 59(e) motion.
- Key federal claims on appeal: (1) district court ruled merits without post-scheduling merits briefing; (2) ineffective assistance of penalty-phase counsel for inadequate mitigation investigation and failure to present mitigation experts/evidence/closing; (3) challenge to Alabama’s lethal-injection protocol; (4) whether AEDPA deference applied to state-court adjudications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McNabb) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| District court disposed of habeas merits without permitting additional merits briefing as scheduled | McNabb argued district court violated due process by ruling on the merits without permitting the briefing the magistrate scheduling order contemplated | State argued no constitutional right to additional merits briefing in habeas; pleadings sufficed | Court: No due process violation; habeas rules don't guarantee post-scheduling merits briefing and pleadings/answer were adequate; affirmed denial |
| Ineffective assistance re: mitigation investigation and failure to present mitigation evidence at penalty phase | McNabb claimed counsel failed to investigate/present family, social, and medical mitigation that would have created reasonable probability of different sentence | State argued much of mitigation was presented via McNabb's own testimony; petitioner failed to plead specifics and evidence would be cumulative | Court: State courts reasonably applied Strickland; petition failed on specificity and prejudice grounds; no relief |
| Challenge to Alabama lethal-injection protocol in §2254 habeas | McNabb argued method-of-execution claim attacks execution method and is proper in habeas | State argued method-of-execution claims concern confinement conditions and belong in §1983, not habeas | Court: Method-of-execution claim is cognizable under §1983, not §2254; district court correctly dismissed it from habeas petition |
| Whether AEDPA deference applied to counsel-ineffectiveness claims | McNabb argued state courts did not adjudicate some claims on the merits so district court should review de novo | State argued state courts did reach merits (or reasonably dismissed for pleading deficiencies), so AEDPA applies | Court: AEDPA deference was appropriate; state courts adjudicated claims on merits or reasonably dismissed under state procedure; affirmed denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (holding that a jury must find aggravating circumstances necessary for death sentences)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (counsel’s duty to investigate mitigating evidence at sentencing)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (clarifying AEDPA unreasonable-application standard)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (limits on federal habeas review of new evidence that duplicates trial mitigation)
- Wong v. Belmontes, 558 U.S. 15 (2009) (prejudice inquiry may consider evidence cumulative to trial evidence)
- Tompkins v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 557 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2009) (method-of-execution challenges belong in §1983 rather than habeas)