Wilkerson v. State
70 So. 3d 442
Ala. Crim. App.2011Background
- Wilkerson appeals denial of his Rule 32 postconviction petition challenging a 2004 capital murder conviction and life-without-parole sentence.
- The circuit court and this Court previously addressed the petition and remanded for specific findings on one claim.
- The record shows extensive pretrial and trial representation, including Radney (pretrial) and Davis/Gillenwaters (trial), with an evidentiary hearing conducted in 2009.
- Wilkerson asserted multiple ineffective-assistance claims, including the adequacy of waiver, suppression-related arguments, and trial-venue strategies.
- On remand, the circuit court issued supplemental findings; the Court reviews de novo or for abuse of discretion as appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| I. Whether Radney’s advice to cooperate was ineffective | Wilkerson | Wilkerson | No ineffective assistance; strategic, not deficient. |
| II. Whether Radney’s and co-counsel’s handling at suppression was ineffective | Wilkerson | Davis/Gillenwaters | No; evidence supported voluntariness and Miranda predicate. |
| III. Whether Radney’s negotiations involved a contingent deal requiring victims’ approval | Wilkerson | Radney/State | No contingent agreement; ongoing negotiations did not hinge on victims’ approval. |
| IV. Whether trial counsel were ineffective for not challenging corpus delicti | Wilkerson | — | Abandoned by Wilkerson; not reviewable; court declines. |
| V. Whether trial counsel were ineffective regarding jury instructions | Wilkerson | Davis/Gillenwaters | No error; instructions properly conveyed required elements and intent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes the two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Jones v. State, 727 So.2d 866 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998) (discusses implications of plea negotiations and warnings to defendant)
- Bearden v. State, 825 So.2d 868 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001) (counsel not ineffective for baseless objections; standard for reviewing trial objections)
- Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986) (external communications with family do not affect waivers absent coercion)