221 So. 3d 1125
Ala. Crim. App.2016Background
- Nathaniel Woods was convicted in 2005 of four counts of capital murder (killing three Birmingham police officers) and one count of attempted murder; jury recommended death (10–2) and the trial court sentenced him to death.
- On direct appeal this Court affirmed Woods’s convictions and death sentence; Woods failed to pursue rehearing or timely certiorari, and an attempted out‑of‑time appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court was denied.
- Woods filed a Rule 32 petition (postconviction) raising numerous ineffective‑assistance, juror‑misconduct, evidentiary, and appellate‑counsel claims; the Jefferson Circuit Court summarily dismissed the petition and Woods appealed.
- The circuit court concluded many claims failed Rule 32.6(b)’s full‑fact pleading requirements: Woods often alleged conclusions or ‘‘information and belief’’ without naming experts, alleging expected testimony, or showing prejudice.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals applied de novo review to pleading sufficiency and affirmed the summary dismissal, finding Rule 32 preclusion and pleading deficiencies controlled and that the circuit court’s order reflected the court’s independent judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Woods) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Rule 32 pleading | Rule 32.6 does not impose onerous factual pleading; civil notice pleading should apply | Rule 32 requires full factual pleading; petitioner must plead facts showing entitlement to relief | Affirmed dismissal: Rule 32 demands strict, full‑fact pleading and Woods failed to meet it |
| Failure to obtain handwriting expert | Counsel ineffective for not securing independent handwriting expert to rebut State expert | Petitioner failed to name expert or plead expected testimony or prejudice; counsel sought funds and cross‑examined State expert (trial strategy) | Dismissed: conclusory claim, no identity/content of expert, no prejudice pleaded |
| Failure to investigate/obtain tests and records (forensics, police policies) | Counsel should have tested shirt, prints, shoe print and obtained police procedures to support alternative theory | Claims pleaded on ‘‘information and belief’’; trial record shows motions for testing and investigator funds, and witnesses contradict intoxication/macing assertions | Dismissed: insufficiently pleaded and no demonstrated prejudice |
| Ineffective assistance on appeal / out‑of‑time rehearing | Appellate counsel’s failure to file rehearing or raise listed issues equates to abandonment and entitles Woods to relief/out‑of‑time appeal | No constitutional right to counsel for discretionary rehearing/certiorari; claims were either previously raised or procedurally barred and inadequately pleaded | Dismissed: procedurally barred or meritless; mere laundry list without facts insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Woods v. State, 13 So.3d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007) (direct‑appeal opinion describing facts and evidence against Woods)
- Ex parte Beckworth, 190 So.3d 571 (Ala. 2013) (Rule 32 pleading: petitioner need not plead absence of preclusion at pleading stage)
- Hyde v. State, 950 So.2d 344 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) (explaining Rule 32.6(b) full‑fact pleading requirements for ineffective‑assistance claims)
- Mashburn v. State, 148 So.3d 1094 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013) (voluntary‑intoxication claims must plead sufficient facts to show viability)
- Spencer v. State, 201 So.3d 573 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015) (postconviction pleading requirements applied in co‑defendant’s Rule 32 proceedings)
- Ex parte Ingram, 51 So.3d 1119 (Ala. 2010) (trial court may not adopt verbatim a party’s proposed order without independent findings)
- Ex parte Jenkins, 105 So.3d 1250 (Ala. 2012) (clarifies when adopting a proposed order is permissible based on record support)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (governs ineffective‑assistance performance and prejudice standard)
- Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600 (U.S. 1974) (no constitutional right to counsel for discretionary state appeals)