Washington v. State
95 So. 3d 26
Ala. Crim. App.2012Background
- Washington, on death row, was convicted in January 2004 of murdering Jules and Florence McKinnon during a single scheme involving robbery and burglary.
- The jury recommended death by a 10–2 vote, and the circuit court sentenced Washington to death; direct appeal affirmed in 2005.
- Washington filed a Rule 32 postconviction petition in August 2006, amended in October 2006, with an evidentiary hearing on penalty-phase counsel performance held in 2007–2008.
- The postconviction court denied relief on most claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase, after weighing evidence and applying Rule 32.2 and 32.7(d) deadlines and bars.
- The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals conducted de novo review and affirmatively weighed omitted mitigation against proven aggravators, ultimately denying Washington’s claims and affirming the denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance at penalty phase | Washington asserts trial counsel failed to investigate and present mitigation. | State contends investigation and presentation were reasonable; strategic decisions supported by evidence. | No reversible error; claims rejected; investigation deemed reasonable and strategy within professional norms. |
| Newly discovered evidence / Brady claim | State suppressed Brady materials favorable to Washington. | Claim procedurally barred for not pleading newly discovered evidence; evidence not raised timely. | Procedurally barred; Brady claim affirmed as barred for lack of newly discovered-evidence basis. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct and prosecutorial- conduct claims | Prosecutor misstated law and vouched for witnesses; trial counsel ineffective for not objecting. | Misconduct claims were procedurally barred or inadequately pleaded; no clear basis shown for relief. | Summary dismissal upheld for lack of properly pleaded specifics; no merit shown for ineffective assistance. |
| Ring v. Arizona and aggravation finding | Jury did not unanimously determine aggravating factors; potential Ring violation. | Jurors unanimously convicted in guilt phase of aggravating circumstances; Ring not violated. | Procedurally barred; no relief since guilt-phase verdict established aggravators beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Constitutionality of Alabama's method of execution | Counsel should challenge lethal injection protocol as cruel and unusual. | Belisle and Baze standards affirm constitutionality; claims lacked timely basis for appeal. | Procedurally barred; protocol deemed constitutional; no relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-pronged deficient-performance and prejudice test)
- Ex parte White, 792 So.2d 1097 (Ala. 2001) (de novo review when facts undisputed)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (mitigation investigation standard and prejudice assessment)
- Hyde v. State, 950 So.2d 344 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) (pleading and procedural bar standards for Rule 32 petitions)
- In re Massaro / Massaro line (Massaro v. United States), 538 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2003) (appellate record limitations for ineffective assistance claims)