David Lee Roberts v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections

BARKETT, Before HULL WILSON, Judges. Circuit PER CURIAM: Roberts, prison- an Alabama state David er, court’s denial appeals from the district wallet, petition money 2254 habeas from the victim’s and shot of his U.S.C. mur- challenging conviction times in .22 her three the head with a Appeala- der. We issued a Certificate slept. caliber rifle while she died Jones (1) bility following three issues: on poured within flam- seconds. Roberts trial counsel was inef- whether Roberts’s liquid body mable on her and on the failing investigate fective for and/or den, piece floor in the then set fire ato present evidence to paper placed he had under the couch. despite entering plea defense a of “not In the in bedroom which Roberts had guilty by and not reason of insani- guilty stayed, which was the basement of (2) ty”; improperly whether the trial court house, Satterfield’s Roberts set another to instruct on the refused Roberts’s fire, causing major damage room murder; felony lesser included offense of sending throughout smoke (3) and whether the state court erred when house, house. taking Roberts left the it reversed Roberts’s death sentence but items, variety with him a such as the penalty- remanded the case for a new weapon guns. murder and other He hid court, phase hearing before the trial evidence, police this but later led the jury.1 before a that the hiding place. court’s resolution of each these contrary issues was to or involved an un- Law enforcement questioned authorities clearly estab- gave Roberts and he several statements. lished federal law. shooting setting He admitted Jones Satterfield’s house on fire. In his last I. BACKGROUND statement, Roberts said that he had set Roberts was convicted in December get the house on fire to back at Satter- 1992 for two counts of murder and threatening parents; field for his he said following the conclusion of pеnalty that he did not know that Jones would phase hearing, recommended that be at the house and he did not know parole by he be sentenced to life without a why he shot her. majority Nearly vote seven to five. two At sentencing hearing before the years May later the trial court jury, presented the State evidence that sentencing rejected hearing held recommendation, previously Roberts had jury’s sentencing been convicted Rob- erts to death. degree burglary of second and first de- theft, gree and that he had been on

The facts of the offense as recounted parolе for less than two months when he court on direct appeal committed this crime. Roberts’s broth- are as follows: er, mother, Brenda, Terry, and his testi- houseguest Roberts had been a of Wen- nervous, fied that slept Roberts was 22, 1992, April dell Satterfield. On Sat- poorly, history and had a of drug abuse. Jones, girlfriend, terfield’s Annetra Terry Roberts also testified that two sleeping on a couch in Satterfield’s den. murder, days before the Satterfield job Roberts left his and went to Satter- what field’s residence made could be construed as a around noon on that day. packed belongings, against He stole threat their father. issue, granted pursue

1. We also the COAon a fourth this claim and we deem it to have brief, which Roberts does not address in his been abandoned. presume thus we that he does not wish to denied, hearing granted before the district court and we At the sentence court, appealability testified that he was sor- certificate of on the issues happened. what had He stated above. ry about noted had threat- an “older individual” II. STANDARD OF REVIEW parents, pres- kill his ened to time, that he had up had built over sure reviewing When the district court’s help, turn to for and that he no one to relief, of habeas grant or denial we review thought he he needed to do did what legal questions its conclusions time. He also testified of law and fact questions mixed de novo him to burn the “older individual” told findings and its of fact for clear error. to shoot Annetra Jones.2 house and (11th Buss, 1274, v. 658 F.3d 1277 Walls Cir.2011). Under the Antiterrorism and conviction was affirmed on di- Roberts’s however, 1996, Penalty Effective Death Act of his sentence was re- appeal, rect (“AED- 1-4-132, trial 110 1214 and remanded because the Pub.L. Stat. versed PA”), may certain evi- improperly grant had excluded a federal court habeas court sentencing hearing.3 during the relief unless the state court’s decision on dencе remand, trial court held another Upon of the claim ‍​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‍petitioner’s the merits jury, sentencing hearing, to, without “contrary or an involved unreasonable to death.4 After again of, sentenced Roberts clearly established Federal clarification, the trial court’s sen- law, further by the Supreme as determined Court by was affirmed both the tencing order the United States.” 28 U.S.C. court,5 the Alabama appellate 2254(d)(1). Su- § Supreme The Court has ex- The United States Su- preme 2254(d) Court.6 plained requirements as Court denied certiorari.7 preme follows: clause, “contrary Under the to” federal timely petition filed his state for

Roberts if may grant habeas court the writ pursuant relief to Rule 32 post-conviction at a conclusion oppo- state court arrives Rules of Criminal Proce- of the Alabama Petition”). by to that reached this Court on a (“Rule site Following an dure 32 if question of law or the state court trial court8 evidentiary hearing, the state differently every decides a case than this denying an order relief on entered materially on a indistin- only raised three claims of Court has set claim. Roberts appeal, guishable facts. Under the “unreason- ineffective assistance of counsel clausе, a federal habeas application” able which were denied the state if may grant court the writ which a writ of certiorari was court and for governing the correct le- granted. pe- Roberts filed his federal court identifies corpus, gal principle which the from this Court’s decisions tition for writ of habeas 939, State, 7. Roberts v. 528 U.S. 120 S.Ct. 2. Roberts v. 735 So.2d 1249-50 1997). (1999). (Ala.Crim.App. L.Ed.2d 271 3. Id. at 1266. presided judge who over Roberts's trial 8. The who, contrary jury's advisory sen- Id. death, tence, him to was the same sentenced State, 1269-70 5. Roberts v. 735 So.2d presided judge who over Roberts’s Rule 1997). (Ala.Crim.App. proceedings post- and who denied all of his conviсtion claims. Roberts, (Ala. parte 6. Ex 735 So.2d 1999). allegation unreasonably applies principle of ineffective assistance

but to investigate of counsel failure prisoner’s the facts of the case. insanity. affirmative defense of I of Count 412-13, Taylor, Williams his Rule 32 Petition was entitled “Mr. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 Roberts Was Denied Effective Assistance Before, III. DISCUSSION During, of Counsel and after His count, In support Trial.” of that Ineffective Assistance of Counsel A. cited to Strickland and to the circuit’s law During the Guilt Phase of Trial duty that defense counsel has a to thor- Amend- his Sixth oughly investigate the State’s evidence of trial right ment to effective assistance plausible defense theories. He al- violated because his trial coun- counsel was leged that him Odum failed to meet with sel, Odum, plea Ed asserted a of “not length necessary for “the of time to con- guilty by insanity” guilty or not reason adequate investigation duct of the State’s presence in the of the but failed to case, witnesses, investigate defense or to investigate present any or to evidence in adequately prepare a defense for trial.” support plea. of this The state alleged Roberts also that Odum was inef- investigate to mental in- failure failing pеtition fective for to for and obtain sanity procedurally is defaulted. expert prep- assistance to assist with trial aration and that he “should have hired an AEDPA, Under a federal habeas independent psychiatric expert to evaluate petition may granted any not be to as generally signs Mr. Roberts for of mental claim petitioner unless the has exhausted impairment guilt mitiga- relevant to regarding available state court remedies well, tion.” alleged As he that Odum (c). 2254(b), that claim. See U.S.C. develop theory failed to a of the case and fairly pre federal claim must be “[T]he sрecifically was ineffective for entering sented to the state courts so that the state plea guilty by insanity of reason of opportunity courts have had the to first then to failing present any evidence in sought hear the claim to be vindicated in support theory. During of that the state proceeding.” Ogle the federal habeas court evidentiary hearing, pre- (11th Johnson, 488 F.3d Cir. evidence, primarily through sented 2007) (internal omitted) quotation marks testimony Odum, of that Odum failed to (citation omitted). In order to determine investigate insanity despite defense exhausted, whether a claim has been we other evidence Roberts’s mental illness. look to the entire state court record and Finally, post-conviction ap- Roberts’s state order, just may the state court’s which pellate brief asserted that his trial counsel specific allegation be silent as to a of inef failing investigate was ineffective for fective assistance of counsel. See id. at defense: “The Rule 32 Peti- (“[Petitioner] persuasively argues pointed tion out this lead the to be- fairly presented that he several claims of guilty lieve indeed that Mr. Roberts was through ineffective assistance of counsel by raising that affirmаtive defense no with testimony, direct the examination of his present evidence to at trial. Odum said post-trial attorney, entry pro of his se prior special to the trial he had done no evidence, filing memorandum into and the preparation raising for plea.” such We brief.”). post-hearing of a therefore conclude that this claim is not defaulted, fairly We conclude that Roberts procedurally accordingly, presented to the post-conviction state must decide whether the state court un- reasonably clearly applied established fed- reasonable doubt that Roberts committed in denying Nonetheless, eral law Roberts’s claim of inef- the murder. appel- court, counsel late agreeing fective assistance of for failure to with the Rule 32 trial investigate present findings, and failure to evidence court’s concluded that Roberts support insanity. prove failed to his defense of his trial counsel was First, ineffective. the state court noted addressing In claim Roberts’s appeared that it that Roberts and his trial counsel, ineffective assistance counsel were the bench pleas when the explained, “Roberts con guilty by of not reason on insаnity were tends his trail counsel was ineffective Second, entered. the state court conclud- entering plea guilty by of not mental ed that was clear that the venire disease or defect in front of the was in the courtroom when the plea was failing present any then evidence to entered, but further concluded that there plea.” The court then cited was no evidence to support a finding that the transcript of the trial proceedings prospective jurors heard entry entry that concerned the plea of not the insanity plea. The state court based guilty by insanity. pеrtinent reason of this conclusion in part on Odum’s Rule 32 part, following exchange between the testimony wherein he stated that the ar- judge and the defense counsel occurred. raignment took place at the bench and that THE charged COURT: You are under he did not know “who heard what.” The Count 1 of the indictment of the offense state court also credited trial counsel’s tes- during of murder robbery; to that how timony that he believed that he would have you plead? do in speaking and, thus, been a hushed tone guilty. guilty [Trial Not Not counsel]: the state appellate court determined that by insanity. reason of presented no evidence at his Rule THE 2 COURT: Under Count of the hearing 32 that prospective jurors you indictment are charged with murder entry heard the insanity plea or in connection with an arson in the sec- that, did, if they they understood this to be ond degree. charge you To that how do an guilt. Finally, admission of the state plead? appellate court credited the Rule trial guilty plea Not [Trial counsel]: and not finding court’s that the plea was with- guilty by reason of insanity. ‍​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‍drawn before the case was sent to the jury, which was charged THE never on the de- may COURT: You be seated. insanity. fense of Based these cоnclu- Ladies gentlemen, calling we are evidence, sions about the record the state trial at this time the case of State of appellate court concluded that Roberts Alabama vs. David Lee Roberts who is prejudiced by was not entry of the charged with two counts of mur- insanity plea and therefore denied his der. claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The state court then noted that court began qualification trial its of the In order to establish ineffective assis- venire. counsel, tance of Roberts must show that disputes

No one that Roberts’s trial performance his counsel’s was deficient presented counsel never any deficiency evidence of and that the prejudiced his de- insanity and indeed his trial counsel testi- fense. v. Washington, Strickland 466 U.S. 668, 687, fied at evidentiary the Rule 32 hearing 104 S.Ct. 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). that his defense strategy was to create respect perform- With to deficient anee, quire his “coun- Roberts must show that to consider whether objective an representation probability fell below there is a reasonable that Rob- sel’s Id. at being standard reasonableness.” erts’s trial would have resulted in his 2052. As to he must prejudice, by insanity 104 S.Ct. had guilty found not reason of probаbili- that there is “reasonable properly show his trial counsel investigated that, unprofessional ty but for counsel’s insanity e.g. an presented defense. See errors, the proceeding Jones, result of the would v. 26 F.3d Weeks 1038-39 Cir.1994) been (11th have different.” Id. at S.Ct. (explaining that to establish prejudice petitioner “would have to estab- probability lish a reasonable that his trial question need not address the We failure to discover his counsel’s and review performance we cannot deficient because and, history from hospital] mental [the say the state court’s thus, insanity defense, present would prеjudice un- Strickland’s standard was being guilty have resulted found not argued reasonable. Roberts state insanity”). by assessing reason court, part, by prejudiced that he was probability that the outcome have would entry guilty by his counsel’s of the not different, reviewing been court must such plea plea reason because totality consider the of the evi- relevant have by jury would been treated as an judge dence or before as well as charged admission that he committed pro- the evidence adduced at the habeas And, argues, offense. he when the Smith, ceedings. Wiggins See insanity, heard no then evidence of his 510, 536, 156 L.Ed.2d have would had no reason not find him guilty given that he had admit- essentially Initially, the offense we can- ted conduct. claim, agree As to this we with Roberts say unreasonably that the state court court never addressed applied finding Strickland on its based prejudiced whether Roberts was likely more than not never failure to investigate present Odum’s the plea. finding, heard Given this there therefore, insanity his evidence of our presume have would been no reason by only, review is controlled Strickland impression had the that Rob- without the added deference of AEDPA. conduct, had erts admitted the offense Beard, Rompilla See v. prejudice therefore no have could resulted 162 L.Ed.2d 360 entry the insanity from of the plea. However, considering after the evidence Roberts, however, argues also that that contends Odum should have prejudice the state court never addressed presented discovered to establish and/or pertained as to his claim that his trial insanity, say his we cannot that is a there was failing counsel ineffective for to inves probability that this evidence his tigate mental state in of the support changed would have the outcome of his insanity claim, defensе. on this that prejudiced by Based trial such he was proper prejudice that “a to investigate Odum’s failure the defense analysis require would of what insanity. review Roberts relies on the court- counsel presented Taylor evidence could have psychiatric report ordered from insanity plea, [his] if counsel had Facility Hardin Secure Medical and the adequate an investigation testimony Shealy conducted before of Dr. Allen was that entry plea.” appropriate the of the presented sentencing hearing The at his second analysis prejudice for this claim would re- thаt he to establish was insane at the time testimony of Although Taylor points original the Har- his trial offense. of the counsel, Masdon, readily that Roberts report identified Samuel who stated that din significant substance abuse changed admitted Roberts’s versions of the events self-reported prior talked, four sui- past, had they each time which Masdon at- occasionally reported attempts, cide tributed to Roberts’s LSD use. tone, high-pitched it concluded

hearing a the defendant bears disorder and personality that Roberts’s proving the burden of defense insan substance abuse would substan- past ity by convincing clear and evidence. See understanding with his tially interfere Allen, (11th 598 F.3d Williams discussing right wrong. Specifically from Cir.2010) 13A-3-1(a), (citing § Ala.Code offense, state at the time of the his mental (c)). Specifically the defendant must show that Roberts did not report stated that “at the time of the commission of the “major debilitating of a history have a offense, constituting acts “[tjhere defen illness” and that is no evi- mental dant, as a result of severe ‍​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‍mental disease suffering that was from [Roberts] dence defect, appreciate or was unable to during alleged the time of the offense such quality wrongfulness nature and or substantially have interfered of his which would 13A-3-1(a). understanding right from acts.” Ala.Code We have with Weeks, at wrong.” explained See 26 F.3d 1038-39 that this that “in means order to (“If suffering from a men- Weeks establish affirmative defense of insani defect at the time of the tal disease or ty, the defendant must establish that he trial, preju- then he was not crime or at from a suffered mental disease.” present his counsel’s failure to diced Williams, 598 F.3d at 789. history mental that he contends should Given Alabama’s standard for establish- submitted.”). have been defense, ing say we cannot testimony on the Roberts also relies that, had the heard all of evi- he is the Shealy type Dr. which asserts dence, there is a reasonable probability uncovered evidence Odum would have would have concluded that in failing had he not been deficient to Roberts was insane at the time of the at investigate Roberts’s mental status report Taylor offense. The from Hardin testified, Shealy of the offense. Dr. time specifically concluded that Roberts was not sentencing hearing, at Roberts’s second suffering any debilitating from mental ill- that he did not believe that Roberts knew of the crime ness the time happened

what at the time of the offense nothing there was to indicate that he сould contradictory numerous state- given the distinguish right wrong. from Dr. ments made Roberts about the events. Shealy’s testimony at most Masdon’s Shealy memory Dr. attributed Roberts’s extremely establish that Roberts in- lapses drug to his excessive alcohol and offense, at the time of toxicated the but use, him diagnosing with “cannabis intoxi- concluding no basis for that as the provide However, when asked whether cation.” result of a severe mental defect or illness Roberts was insane at the time of the appreciate wrongful- that he could not the offense, that Shealy Dr. testified is “[i]t (voluntary ness of his actions. See id. if a person difficult to reach a conclusion intoxication is not an affirmative defense to happened. doesn’t know what Difficult to Alabama). capital murder in reach a conclusion about whether he knew Accordingly, Roberts cannot wrong from if he didn’t know what because right prejudice based on Odum’s failure to happened Finally, number one.” Roberts show 1094 jury sup- absolutely barring capital a in a present evidence from

investigate and to a of- considering from lesser-included defense, case the the district of port capital to that of murder. 447 U.S. fense claim is denial of his Strickland court’s 638, 100 The ex- at S.Ct. 2382. Court affirmed. unques- that “when the evidence plained is tionably establishes defendant on to an Instruction B. Entitlement serious, a offense—but guilty of violent of the Lesser Included Offense respect some doubt with to an ele- leaves Felony Murder justify a ment that would conviction of argues that the state Roberts next failure capital provide offense—” the to jury to instruct the on trial court’s failure jury option with a lesser- the another of felony his the offense of murder violated included offense leads intolerable a trial and that right to fair of an for a risk unwarranted conviction unreаson court’s decision was an appellate crime. capital at 637. Id. 447 application of Beck able Here, Roberts the evidence 2382, L.Ed.2d 392 U.S. 65 trial at his about his debilitated mental guilt conclusion of the At the left whether state doubt about he formed trial, of Roberts’s the trial court phase specific necessary the to kill for a intent jury on instructed the the elements non- capital conviction either murder or a capital during course of rob murder therefore, murder, failure capital bery during arson and course of give felony an instruction on murder— non-capi on the lesser-inсluded offense of require an offense that intent to does tal intentional murder. The trial court kill—lead to the intolerable risk of jury that also instructed the it could return requir- for unwarranted conviction murder not-guilty. appeal, a On verdict of direct ing specific Supreme intent. The Court’s argued there was evidence Arizona, later decision in Schad v. 501 regarding of mind the time of his state 555 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d offense, which should have allowed (1991), however, seems to Rob- foreclose pos whether consider Schad, argument. erts’s ex- the Court specific cap requisite sessed intent plained petitioner in that case murder, ital and therefore the lesser-in holding could not under the “succeed strict felony cluded should offense murder Beck,” option because the had part have been instructions. finding “guilty of a lesser defendant court this appellate The considered offense, second-degree included noncapital merits, recognizing claim on that “[a] murder.” U.S. at 111 S.Ct. 2491. jury charge a offense lesser included not willing The Court was also to extend given should be there a when is process Beck principles underlying the due theory from the evidence it.” to conclude that ‍​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‍defendant (Ala. State, Roberts v. 735 Sо.2d any is entitled less- case to instructions on Crim.App.1997). The state Beck, explaining that in er-included offense went on to conclude that the instruction “repeatedly all-or-nothing it the stressed ad was warranted because “Roberts jury of the with which the nature decision mitted in his statement that he intentional presented.” was Id. The Court concluded ly shot the kill her.” repeatedly victim to jury in in- that because the Schad was at 1253. Id. murder, degree on structed second Beck, In that Supreme the Court held therefore not faced with an all-or- “was the con- constitutionally prohibited nothing Alabama choice оffense of between

1095 murder) innocence[,]” a the (capital statutory viction defendant has right to a sentencing hearing Id. at before a implicated. jury, Beck was not jury aggravating the to find and mitigating S.Ct. 2382. advisory factors and an render verdict say that the Ultimately, we cannot state findings. based on those See Ala.Code of appellate court’s denial Roberts’s Beck 13A-5-46(a). § pro- Alabama law also in claim this case was unreasonable vides that judge the must consider the Court application Supreme precedent. of verdict, jury’s advisory which is not bind- The state court identified the correct stan- 13A-5-47(e). ing on the trial Id. judge. requiring dard for an instruction on a less- Despite the recommendation seven of offense, er-included i.e. “when there is a jurors the twelve given that Roberts be a theory from the evidence to parole, sentence life without the trial however, it,” support determined that judge in Roberts’s case sentenced him to the evidence did not the conclusion death. that Roberts intent to kill lacked as he gave intentionally a statement that “he appealed his conviction and sen- repeatedly shot the victim to kill her.” tence and appellate court re- Roberts, 735 at 1252-53. According- So.2d versed the death concluding sentence that ly, say we cannot the state court’s the trial court prevented him from pre- resolution of claim involved an this unrea- senting may evidence which have estab- Supreme application sonable Court statutory lished certain mitigating factors. precedent. appellate The state court remanded for resentencing but specifically ordered that Resentencing

C. Roberts’s a hearing need not be conducted in front Proceeding Judge-Only jury of a and could be held before only a judge. claim Roberts had new sentencing Roberts’s final is that hearing judge, before the trial appeal, again direct hav who death, sentenced him found error in and after a ing penalty reversible second clarification, remand for phase further that death hearing, ordering erred jury sentence was empaneling of a new to conduct affirmed. Rob resentencing upon erts’s remand. Roberts a sentencing judge ground seeks habeas relief on that the must be able to a constitutionally consider failure to require resentencing before a jury valid recommendation and that permitting only and instead the judge advisory verdict in his case did not meet penalty phase hearing conduct a new standard because was not application was an unreasonable Harris permitted mitigating to hear certain evi- v. U.S. We, however, say dence. cannot 130 L.Ed.2d 1004 The Alabama state appellate failure to order court’s re- Court, Harris, Supreme relying on re sentencing jury and before a the Alabama rejected viewed this claim on direct Supreme Court’s affirmance of that deci- Roberts, appeal. Ex Parte 735 So.2d at sion was an unreasonable Supreme precedent. Spaziano Court Florida, At original Roberts’s conclusion S.Ct. penalty phase hearing, (1984), Supreme recom- L.Ed.2d 340 Court specifically mended to 5 that vote of 7 Roberts be held that there is no constitu- prison right jury sentencing sentenced to life in without tional in a capital law, possibility parole. Under Alabama case. Roberts’s reliance Harris does Harris, persuade sentence, not us otherwise. capital sentencing Alabama’s re- Court, in Supreme addressing gime permitted Alabama’s judge reject, to with- scheme, capital sentencing asked “whether any standard, out guiding that recommen- Eighth Amendment to thе Constitution death, dation in favor of a sentence of requires sentencing judge to ascribe judge which is what the in this case did. any particular weight to the verdict of an practical The consequence of Alabama’s advisory jury.” 513 U.S. 115 S.Ct. system exactly is as Justice Stevens de- not, In concluding that it does scribed: Court noted that the permits Constitution alone, judge, the trial The acting impose put to defendant’s life is ‍​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‍twice in jeop- therefore, penalty ardy, death once before the again would repeat be unconstitutional permit performance the trial before a differ- ent, judge wеight give likely to decide what sympathetic, less deci- jury’s advisory verdict. Id. at sionmaker. A scheme that we assumed provide S.Ct. 1031. would capital defendants with more, less, judicial rather than protec- Moreover, the original jury recommen- tion, perversely has pro- devolved into a dation was 7 to 5 in favor of a life sen- cedure that requires the defendant tence, a determination that could not have stave off a death sentence at each of two been improved upon by a second oth- de novo sentencing hearings. jurors er than for more to recommend life. However, because Alabama law does not (internal Id. at citation, 115 S.Ct. 1031 require the judge jury’s to follow the rec- quotation omitted). marks and alteration ommendation no matter the number of Moreover, because the sentencing decision jurors life, recommending we cannot state i.e., of the first pre- decisionmaker-— Supreme Alabama Court’s affir- sumed ignored be —can mance of the appellate court’s remand for any without limiting principles in favor of a judge-only resentencing was an unreason- sentence of death the second decision- able clearly established fed- maker, question I whether it can be eral law. deemed constitutional.

AFFIRMED. HULL, Judge, Circuit specially concurring: BARKETT, Judge, Circuit concurring: I I concur in majority’s concur in the majority’s opinion opinion. I separately only write separately only write to state that my to voice agree- has challenged ment constitutionality with Justice recognition Stevens’s statutory, judicial Alabama’s sys- Harris v. override S.Ct. tem in capital sentencing. Therefore, (1995), 130 L.Ed.2d 1004 per- Court, issue versity is not before the judicial of Alabama’s and there sys- override is no reason to tem in discuss it. sentencing. As Justice Ste- noted, vens Alabama is one of the four judicial

states that allow override of a

jury’s recommendation of a life sentence. Harris, 515-16,

See 513 U.S. at (Stevens, J., dissenting). Even

though majority jurors in Roberts’s

case recommended that he receive a life

Case Details

Case Name: David Lee Roberts v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Date Published: Apr 18, 2012

Citation: 677 F.3d 1086

Docket Number: 10-15259

Court Abbreviation: 11th Cir.