Case Title: Ex Parte Pierce

Citation: 851 So. 2d 618

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2002-09-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
851 So. 2d 618 (2002)
Ex parte Andy Dwight PIERCE.
(In re Andy Dwight Pierce v. State of Alabama).
1981270.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 20, 2002.
Rehearing Denied November 22, 2002.
*619 Ellen L. Wiesner of Cannon & Dunphy, S.C., Brookfield, Wisconsin (brief on remand from denial of postconviction relief filed by LaJuana Davis, Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama, Montgomery), for petitioner.
William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen.; and George A. Martin, Jr., and Beth Jackson Hughes, asst. attys. gen., for respondent.
Thomas W. Sorrells, Montgomery, for amicus curiae Alabama District Attorneys Association.
HOUSTON, Justice.
The facts of this case were summarized in our previous opinion as follows:
Ex parte Pierce, 851 So. 2d 606, 607-08 (Ala.2000). In Pierce, we concluded that "Sheriff Whittle was in fact a key witness for the State," 851 So. 2d  at 610, and found "undisputed evidence indicating [Sheriff Whittle] had close and continual contact with the jury," 851 So. 2d  at 608, in violation of Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 85 S. Ct. 546, 13 L. Ed. 2d 424 (1965). We also held that Pierce's Turner claim, which properly fits under Rule 32.1(a), Ala. R.Crim. P.,[1] would be procedurally barred by Rules 32.2(a)(3) and (5)[2] if "Pierce's attorney did know or should have known of the sheriff's contact with the jury during the trial," 851 So. 2d  at 616, and we remanded the case for the Court of Criminal Appeals to remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on that issue. In remanding, we noted that we were not foreclosing the viability of Pierce's alternative claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 617.
On remand, the trial court found that Pierce's attorney knew or should have known of the sheriff's contact with the jury during the trial. While this finding may result in the preclusion of Pierce's underlying Turner claim, it effectively breathes life into his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, which requires proof (1) that Pierce's attorney did not provide reasonably effective assistance and (2) that Pierce's attorney's deficient performance prejudiced Pierce. Ex parte Land, 775 So. 2d 847, 850 (Ala.2000) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984)).
We answered the question of prejudice in Pierce when we held that a Turner violation occurred. In so holding, we quoted Turner, 379 U.S.  at 473, 85 S. Ct. 546, which noted that "`it would be blinking reality not to recognize the extreme prejudice *621 inherent in [the] continual association throughout the trial between the jurors and ... key witnesses for the prosecution.' "851 So. 2d  at 605. We also find that the failure to raise this constitutional violation constitutes a failure to provide reasonably effective assistance. Therefore, based upon the trial court's findings and our previous conclusions in Pierce, we hold that Pierce is entitled to a new trial based upon his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals for that court to remand it for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LYONS, JOHNSTONE, HARWOOD, and WOODALL, JJ., concur.
STUART, J., concurs specially.
MOORE, C.J., and SEE, J., dissent.
BROWN, J.,[*] recuses herself.
STUART, Justice (concurring specially).
I have thoroughly reviewed this case, and while I am reluctant to reverse a conviction and a sentence for such a ruthless offense where nothing before me establishes Pierce's innocence, I recognize that constitutional guarantees must prevail. Pierce was denied effective assistance of counsel; therefore, his conviction and sentence must be reversed.
In his Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition, Pierce presents the following claims that concern this Court:
As the majority concludes, Pierce's constitutional "juror-misconduct" claim with regard to the alleged improper contact between Sheriff Whittle and the jurors is procedurally barred by Rule 32.2(a)(3) or (5), Ala.R.Crim.P., because the claim could have been raised and addressed at trial and/or on appeal but was not. The circuit court on remand from this Court, Ex parte Pierce, 851 So. 2d 606 (Ala.2000), concluded that this claim could have been raised by counsel and addressed at trial and on appeal. The circuit court made these specific findings:
Additionally, the circuit court noted specific instances in the record where the trial court in open court indicated that Sheriff Whittle would have contact with the jurors. While the extent of Sheriff Whittle's contact with the jury may not have been apparent from those statements, the statements in and of themselves provided Pierce and his counsel with notice that Sheriff Whittle would have contact with the jurors.
In Harris v. State, 233 Ala. 196, 198, 172 So. 347, 348 (1936), this Court stated:
See also § 12-16-10, Ala.Code 1975 (requiring the sheriff to make arrangements for a sequestered jury). The circuit court's findings are supported by the record on remand, the record of the Rule 32 evidentiary hearing, and the record on direct appeal. Therefore, the circuit court did not err in holding that this constitutional claim is procedurally barred because it could have been, but was not, raised and addressed at trial and on appeal. Rule 32.2(a)(3) and (5), Ala.R.Crim.P.
Pierce's contention that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to bring to the trial court's attention the alleged juror misconduct, however, is not procedurally barred.
To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel Pierce must establish that his counsel's performance was deficient and that "but for" counsel's actions the outcome of his trial would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984).
As the majority notes, this Court, in Ex parte Pierce, 851 So. 2d 606, evaluated the evidence and conducted a thorough analysis, applying Turner to the facts in Pierce. This Court concluded that a Turner violation had occurred because Sheriff Whittle had had close and continual contact with the jury and because "Sheriff Whittle was in fact a key witness for the State." 851 So. 2d  at 610.
Additionally, applying the standard intimated in Turner that the contact might have unlawfully influenced the jury, this Court held that the violation was prejudicial.[3] Because we concluded that a Turner *623 violation did occur and that the violation was prejudicial to Pierce's case and because the circuit court concluded that Pierce's counsel knew or should have known of the alleged misconduct, Pierce's counsel's performance was deficient for failing to present this issue to the trial court. Moreover, in light of Sheriff Whittle's continuous contact with the jury,[4] especially his statements informing the jury that members of Pierce's family had threatened the jurors, Pierce established that he was prejudiced by counsel's performance. To show prejudice, "[t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Strickland, 466 U.S.  at 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052. Pierce has met this burden and has established his right to a new trial.
MOORE, Chief Justice (dissenting).
I must respectfully dissent from the main opinion. This Court erred in several ways when it issued its September 1, 2000, opinion in this case. First, I do not believe the sheriff was a key witness in this case. Second, even if the sheriff was a key witness, I do not consider him to have had close and continual contact with the jury. Third, Rule 32.1(e) requires that a claim of newly discovered evidence, from which the constitutional violation in this case arises, must meet certain strict conditions. In its September 1, 2000, opinion, this Court eliminated those conditions, e.g., the requirement in Rule 32.1(e) that the petitioner show he is innocent of the crime of which he was convicted.
We remanded this case for the Court of Criminal Appeals to remand it to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the question whether Pierce's claim could have been raised at trial or on appeal and whether it was thus barred by Rule 32.2(a)(3) or (5). Specifically, we were concerned with whether Pierce's trial counsel in fact knew or should have known of the extent of the sheriff's contact with the jurors during the trial. Ex parte Pierce, 851 So. 2d 606, 616 (Ala.2000).
There were several reasons why this Court considered it important to remand the case for a new hearing. This Court had determined that the sheriff was a "key witness" and that the sheriff had had "close and continual association" with the jury during the trial. Furthermore, the Court carved out an exception to the requirements of Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., for cases involving constitutional claims. I do not agree that the sheriff was a "key witness," nor do I agree that he had "close and continual association" with the jury. Also, I consider that exception it made to Rule 32 to be in error. When this Court adopts a rule, we should follow it and not allow such exceptions. Pierce had an opportunity to appeal his conviction and sentence by alleging legal errors in the case. He was under no obligation in that appeal to show that he was innocent of the crime. However, once he sought review by another method, that is, by way of Rule 32, he came under the stricter requirements of that rule for such a petition to be successful. He could not meet the requirement of Rule 32.1(e). Therefore, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court as to *624 Pierce's guilt and sentence, and I would also affirm the denial of his Rule 32 petition.
This Court's September 1, 2000, opinion summarizes the proceedings as follows:
851 So. 2d  at 607-08.
In its opinion of September 1, 2000, this Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and stated that Sheriff Whittle was a key witness; that he had had close and continual contact with the jury during the trial; that, according to the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 85 S. Ct. 546, 13 L. Ed. 2d 424 (1965), such contact was prima facie prejudicial to Pierce; and that an exception to the claim-preclusion mechanism of Rule 32, Ala.R. Crim.P., operated upon Pierce's constitutional claim to allow his Rule 32 petition to be heard.
I agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals, whose opinion of March 2, 1999, Pierce v. State, 851 So. 2d 558 (Ala.Crim. App.1999), contained the following sound reasoning:
"With regard to newly discovered evidence, Rule 32.1(e), Ala. R.Crim. P., provides:
851 So. 2d  at 565.
In addition to the analysis of the question by the Court of Criminal Appeals, we have the trial court's order after remand. The trial court held a hearing on these questions and determined that Pierce's trial counsel should have known of the sheriff's contact with the jurors for the following reasons:
1) It is well-known in Geneva County that when a jury is sequestered, the sheriff and other employees of the sheriff's department see to the jurors' transportation needs;
2) Geneva County is a small county, and the sheriff's office is also small, requiring nearly the entire sheriff's office to assist a jury that has been sequestered;
3) At several times during the trial, the jury was instructed that it would be assisted by the sheriff;
4) The instructions even stated that the sheriff would explain the arrangements to the jury; and
5) It was plain that the sheriff had contact with the jury in the courtroom during trial.
Therefore, I agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals in its affirmance of the trial court on this issue because Pierce did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 32.2(a)(3 and (5), Ala. R.Crim. P. Because Pierce could have raised this issue during trial, at sentencing, or on appeal, he must be denied relief. See Rule 32.2, Ala. R.Crim. P. Also, Pierce has not shown how the result of his trial could have been different even if he had raised an objection to Sheriff Whittle's contact with the jury before the trial court. Rule 32.1(e)(4), Ala. R.Crim. P. Nor has he shown, as required by Rule 32.1(e)(5), Ala. R.Crim. P., that the facts show that he was innocent of the *626 crime with which he was charged or that he should have received a different sentence. Therefore, the trial court properly denied his Rule 32 petition on this issue. Pierce failed to satisfy Rule 32.1(e), and any one of the three reasons listed above would have prevented his petition from being considered as one that raised newly discovered evidence as required by Rule 32.1(e). His petition is therefore precluded by Rule 32.2(a)(3) and (5).
The following analysis by the Court of Criminal Appeals is the correct one and the one this Court should apply in this case:
851 So. 2d  at 567-70.
Pierce then claims that his counsel was ineffective for not raising the issue of Sheriff Whittle's improper contact with the jury. However, because I do not find Sheriff Whittle to have been a "key witness" or to have had "close and continual contact" with the jury, I believe this claim lacks merit.
Rule 32.1(e) contains certain specific requirements for a successful Rule 32 petition requesting relief on the basis of a nonjurisdictional problem, such as newly discovered evidence. Pierce does not meet any of the three required grounds for relief based on newly discovered evidence. First, he knew or should have known about Sheriff Whittle's contact with the jury. Secondly, he did not show that had he known of the contact the result of his trial would have been different. And thirdly, he did not show that he was innocent of the crime charged or that he should not have received the sentence he received. This Court's September 1, 2000, opinion allowed for an exception from those requirements if the claim raised was a constitutional claim. I agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals that even if he had been able to comply with the requirements of Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., Pierce has not shown that Sheriff Whittle was a "key witness" or that he had "close and continual association" with the jury, thus precluding his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. His petition was procedurally insufficient, and the substance of his claims was meritless for more than one reason.
For the above reasons, I must respectfully dissent.
SEE, Justice (dissenting).
I dissent from the Court's holding that Pierce was prejudiced by the ineffective assistance of his counsel. In my special writing in Ex parte Pierce, 851 So. 2d 606 (Ala.2000), I disagreed "with the [Court's] conclusion that `Sheriff Whittle was a key witness who had improper close and continual contact with the jury.'" 851 So. 2d  at 617. If the sheriff's contact with the jury was not prejudicial, then the failure of Pierce's counsel at trial, posttrial, or by direct appeal to object to that contact did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
[1]  Rule 32.1 provides, in part:

"Subject to the limitations of Rule 32.2, any defendant who has been convicted of a criminal offense may institute a proceeding in the court of original conviction to secure appropriate relief on the ground that:
"(a) The constitution of the United States or of the State of Alabama requires a new trial, a new sentence proceeding, or other relief."
[2]  Rule 32.2 provides, in pertinent part:

"(a) Preclusion of Grounds. A petitioner will not be given relief under this rule based upon any ground:
"....
"(3) Which could have been but was not raised at trial, unless the ground for relief arises under Rule 32.1(b); or
"....
"(5) Which could have been but was not raised on appeal, unless the ground for relief arises under Rule 32.1(b)."
[*]  Justice Brown was a member of the Court of Criminal Appeals when that Court considered this case.
[3]  This standard is consistent with this Court's other holdings applying the "might-have-been-prejudiced" standard for addressing juror-misconduct claims. See Ex parte Dobyne, 805 So. 2d 763 (Ala.2001); Dawson v. State, 710 So. 2d 472 (Ala.1997).
[4]  The sheriff has statutory responsibility for making provisions for a sequestered jury. § 12-16-10, Ala.Code 1975. However, when a sheriff, deputy, or court official is a witness in the trial, it is improper for that sheriff, deputy, or court official to have direct contact with the jurors.