Case Title: Ex parte Robert Anthony Simmons.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1140860

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2015-06-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: 06/26/2015
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2014-2015
_________________________
1140860
_________________________
Ex parte Robert Anthony Simmons
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
(In re:  Robert Anthony Simmons
v.
State of Alabama)
(Houston Circuit Court, CC-93-1046.60 and CC-93-1047.60;
Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-13-1727)
WISE, Justice.
WRIT DENIED.  NO OPINION.
Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Shaw, Main, and Bryan, JJ.,
concur.  
Moore, C.J., and Murdock, J., dissent.
1140860
MOORE, Chief Justice (dissenting).
Based on the facts properly before us, I believe that
Robert Anthony Simmons is entitled to an evidentiary hearing
on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.
I.
Simmons was convicted of first-degree sodomy and first-
degree sexual abuse. The victim was his then six-year-old
stepdaughter, D.Q. Although the events at issue occurred in
1986 when Simmons was 30, the trial did not occur until almost
25 years later. At trial, the victim, then more than 30 years
old, testified to the abuse. Simmons filed a timely Rule 32,
Ala. R. Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief, arguing
ineffective assistance of counsel on the basis of (1) evidence
that was not presented at trial and (2) inadequate objections
and cross-examination by trial counsel.
Simmons seeks certiorari review of the decision of the
Court 
of 
Criminal 
Appeals 
affirming, 
by 
unpublished
memorandum, the summary denial of his Rule 32 petition.
Simmons v. State (No. CR-13-1727, April 10, 2015), ___ So. 3d
___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2015) (table). The merits of Simmons's
claims are not before us. The issues before us are (1) whether
2
1140860
Simmons alleged specific facts that, if true, would entitle
him to an evidentiary hearing on his Rule 32 allegations, and
(2) whether he was entitled to a written explanation from the
trial court of its reasons for denying his petition. As
discussed below, I believe that Simmons's argument that he was
entitled to an evidentiary hearing has merit and that it was
properly preserved.1
II.
A Rule 32 petition must be specific:
"Each claim in the [Rule 32] petition must contain
a clear and specific statement of the grounds upon
which relief is sought, including full disclosure of
the factual basis of those grounds. A bare
allegation that a constitutional right has been
violated and mere conclusions of law shall not be
sufficient to warrant any further proceedings."
Rule 32.6(b), Ala. R. Crim. P. In its unpublished memorandum,
the Court of Criminal Appeals lists 17 reasons, derived from
Simmons's Rule 32 petition, why his trial counsel's
performance was deficient. Even though not described in 
detail
in the memorandum, at least some of the grounds listed appear
Simmons is incorrect in his assertion that a trial court
1
must provide a written explanation for the summary denial of
a Rule 32 petition. "Rule 32.7 does not require the trial
court to make specific findings of fact upon a summary
dismissal." Fincher v. State, 724 So. 2d 87, 89 (Ala. Crim.
App. 1998).
3
1140860
to have the specificity that would entitle Simmons to an
evidentiary hearing:
"Specifically, Simmons alleged that his trial
counsel was ineffective because, he said, his trial
counsel (1) failed to ask the State for its notice
of intent to use Rule 404(b), Ala. R. Evid., before
trial; (2) failed to object to 23 different
questions and answers during D.Q.'s testimony; (3)
failed to effectively cross-examine D.Q.; (4) failed
to research D.Q.'s criminal history; (5) 'aroused
sympathy' for D.Q. by saying she had been abandoned
by her family; (6) failed to ascertain the dates on
which the offense was alleged to have been
committed; (7) failed to prove the content of a
Department of Human Resources ('DHR') report which,
he said, indicated that 'the examination was not
going to prove sexual abuse had occurred'; (8)
failed to subpoena the doctor who examined D.Q. to
testify at trial; (9) failed to question juror no.
81, who was struck for cause and who, Simmons said,
might have been a witness at trial; (10) failed to
subpoena the DHR representative who had investigated
the case; (11) failed to present testimony of
Simmons's 
background; 
(12) 
failed 
to 
present
testimony of D.Q.'s mother's statement to Simmons in
which she told Simmons that the charges had been
dropped; (13) failed to make an offer of proof about
Simmons's ex-wife's extramarital affair; (14) failed
to call witnesses to contradict parts of D.Q.'s
testimony; (15) failed to call character witnesses
for Simmons at trial and at the sentencing hearing;
(16) failed to show that the reason for the delay in
trial was not because Simmons was attempting to
evade prosecution; and (17) failed to file discovery
requests." 
(Emphasis added.)
4
1140860
The Court of Criminal Appeals did not dispute that
Simmons had alleged deficient performance on the part of his
trial counsel sufficient to entitle him to an evidentiary
hearing. That court instead stated that Simmons had failed to
allege facts sufficient to prove that he had been prejudiced
by the deficient performance. "The defendant must show that
there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's
unprofessional errors, the results of the proceeding would
have been different. A reasonable probability is 
a 
probability
sufficient 
to 
undermine 
confidence 
in 
the 
outcome." 
Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984).
At the pleading stage, a defendant need not prove his
allegations but need only present facts that, if true, would
entitle him to relief. Johnson v. State, 835 So. 2d 1077,
1079-80 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001). Trivial or harmless error does
not rise to the level of prejudicial error. But many of the
allegations listed in the unpublished memorandum of the Court
of Criminal Appeals appear far from trivial. In particular,
allegation 7 (that counsel failed to prove the contents of the
Department of Human Resources ("DHR") report that would show
that sexual abuse had not occurred), allegation 8 (that
5
1140860
counsel failed to subpoena the doctor who had examined D.Q. to
testify), and allegation 10 (that counsel failed to call as a
witness the DHR representative who had investigated the case)
would, if true, create a legally sufficient doubt as to
Simmons's guilt in the minds of the jurors, i.e., a reasonable
probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been
different. 
The Court of Criminal Appeals argued in a footnote that 
Simmons 
did 
not 
sufficiently 
identify 
witnesses 
that 
Simmons's
trial counsel should have called or state what the testimony
of those witnesses would have been. But allegations 7, 8, and
10, 
taken 
together, 
specifically 
identify 
the 
examining 
doctor
and the DHR representative as witnesses and proof of the facts
alleged in the DHR report as the reason for their testimony.
At the pleading stage such allegations are sufficient. Rule
32.6(b) requires only "a clear and specific statement of the
grounds upon which relief is sought." The purpose of the
evidentiary hearing is to find the facts. Rule 32.9(a), Ala.
R. Crim. P. After the hearing, the court "shall make specific
findings of fact relating to each material issue of fact
presented."  Rule 32.9(d), Ala. R. Crim. P. 
6
1140860
But in this case no hearing occurred. Instead, the trial
court summarily dismissed the petition, an action that is
appropriate only if "the petition is not sufficiently
specific, or is precluded, or fails to state a claim, or ...
no material issue of fact or law exists which would entitle
the petitioner to relief under this rule and ... no purpose
would be served by any further proceedings." Rule 32.7(d),
Ala. R. Crim. P.
III.
Simmons included in his petition for a writ of certiorari
five pages of detailed examples of alleged failures to object
to portions of the victim's testimony and two pages concerning
the evidentiary significance of the DHR report taken from his
amended petition in the trial court. He also included as an
exhibit to his petition in this Court the DHR report in
question. Evidence from the trial record, however, may not be
considered by this Court in reviewing a petition for a writ of
certiorari unless those facts appeared either in the opinion
or unpublished memorandum of the Court of Criminal Appeals or
in a statement of facts in an application for rehearing before
that court. See Rule 39(d)(5)(A), Ala R. App. P. Because
7
1140860
Simmons did not verify that the additional facts stated in his
petition to this Court were "a verbatim copy of the statement
presented to the court of appeals in the application for
rehearing," Rule 39(d)(5)(A)(ii), Ala. R. App. P., the only
facts this Court may consider in evaluating 
Simmons's petition
are those stated by the Court of Criminal Appeals in its
unpublished memorandum.
The facts stated by the Court of Criminal Appeals
summarize the DHR evidence with sufficient specificity.
Simmons's inclusion in his petition for a writ of certiorari
of two pages of allegations about the DHR evidence taken from
his amended Rule 32 petition in the trial court may, at first
blush, appear to be an improper attempt to import an
additional unverified statement of facts into his petition.
This concern, however, may be unfounded because those "facts"
in large measure repeat the facts stated in the unpublished
memorandum of the Court of Criminal Appeals, facts we may
consider. In particular, the statement of facts in Simmons's
petition for certiorari review refers to "information
regarding an examination of the alleged victim by a physician
which showed no sexual abuse had occurred." This factual
8
1140860
statement 
parallels 
allegation 
7 
in 
the 
unpublished 
memorandum
of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Another factual statement in
the petition refers to "fail[ure] to call as a witness for
[Simmons] the DHR representative who prepared the report."
This statement parallels allegation 10 in the unpublished
memorandum of the Court of Criminal Appeals. An additional
factual statement alleges deficient performance of counsel in
failing to call the examining physician as a witness. This
statement 
parallels 
allegation 
8 
in 
the 
unpublished
memorandum.
Because the facts asserted as to the DHR report, the
examining doctor, and the DHR representative all parallel
statements in the unpublished memorandum of the Court of
Criminal Appeals, those facts are properly before us. The
allegation that Simmons's counsel failed to present critical
evidence supporting the proposition that sexual abuse had not
occurred would, if proven, create "a reasonable probability
that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the results of
the proceeding would have been different." Strickland, 466
U.S. at 694.
 
9
1140860
IV.
In his petition for a writ of certiorari, Simmons clearly
argues that the deficient performance of his counsel caused
him prejudice:
"The deficient performance of [Simmons's] counsel in
failing to call as a witness for [Simmons] the DHR
representative who prepared the report ... and to
introduce the said report in evidence was actually
prejudicial to [Simmons] in that it was a failure to
present evidence strongly impeaching the alleged
victim and evidence strongly favorable to [Simmons]
which would have justified an acquittal on at least
one charge made against him."
Petition, at 12. Furthermore, he argued that the "physician
could present testimony refuting one or both charges made in
the indictments and justifying an acquittal of [Simmons], and
the absence of such testimony was actually and highly
prejudicial to [Simmons]." Id.2
Simmons was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his
allegations about the DHR evidence. "Because [Simmons]
presented allegations that, if true, entitle him to relief,
the trial court erred in summarily dismissing this claim."
Although presented in the "additional facts" section of
2
Simmons's 
petition 
for 
certiorari 
review, 
these 
statements 
are
no more than argument about the facts stated by the Court of
Criminal Appeals in its unpublished memorandum.
10
1140860
Carson v. State, 15 So. 3d 554, 557 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008). I
would issue the writ on this ground. Therefore, I dissent.
11