F ILED U.S. CO URT OF AP P EALS ELEVENTH CI RCUIT DECEMB ER 19, 2 011 JO HN LEY [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 12 20 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 9 7- 00 62 9- CV-MHT-WC BILLY JOE MAGWOO D, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll ee, Cro ss -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us WARDEN, COMM ISSI ONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORREC TIONS, ATTORNEY G ENERAL OF AL ABAMA, Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll an ts , Cro ss -Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Dece m be r 19 , 20 11 ) ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREM E COURT OF THE UNITED STAT ESBefo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, TJOFLAT an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

BLACK, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Alab am a d eath- ro w in m at e Bi ll y Jo e Ma gwo od ’s 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 p et it io n was parti al ly gran te d b y

th e d is tri ctco urt o n h is cla im th athi s d eat h s en te nc e vi ol at edth e fai r-warn in g re qu ire m en t o f th e Due Pro ces s C laus e b ecau se itwas ba se d o n Ex pa rt e Kyz er , 39 9 S o. 2 d 3 30 (Ala . 19 81 ), whi ch was d eci de d a fte r he
co m m it te d h is off

en se an d was ret ro act iv el y ap pl ie d t o h is cas e. Magwo od v. Cu ll iv er , 48 1 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 26 2, 1 28 7 (M .D. Ala. 20 07 ). The St at e o f Alaba m a th enap pe al edth e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f rel ie f on th e fai r-warn in g i ss ue , 1
as se rti ng th e d is tri ctco urt erredwhen itgra nt edrel ie f on Mag woo d’s cl ai m th at Kyz er de pr iv edhi m

of due pro ces s o f la w bec au se th e cl ai m was (1 ) pr oc edur al ly de fau lt ed , (2) pre cl ud edun de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( b) , and(3) m eri tl es s. We
rev ers edth e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f rel ie f on Mag woo d’s fa ir- warn in g c la im , ho ld in g t he cla im

was s uc ces si ve an d g ov ern edby 28 U.S.C. § 22 44 (b )(2 ). 2
The State may

appea l as of right a grant of ha beas r elief by

the district court a

nd a 1 cer tificate of appea lability

is not needed. Arthur v. Haley , 248 F.3d 1302, 1303 n.1 ( 11th Cir. 2001). The district cour t also g rante d relief

on Magwood’s cla im his counsel was ineff ective 2 duringrese ntencingbeca

use he f ailed to ar gue the r etroa ctive application of Kyzer to Mag wood’s case was a

violation of due proc ess. Magwood , 481 F. Supp. 2d at 1295. The State appea led and we r ever sed the district cour t’s g rant of r elief on this claim as w ell. Magwood v. Culliver , 555 F.3d 968, 978 ( 11th Cir. 2009). 2Magwo od

v. Cu ll iv er , 55 5 F .3d96 8, 9 76 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). The Supr em e Co urt gr an te d c ert io rari , rev ers edou r de ci si on th atth e fai r-warn in g c la im was su cces si ve , andrem an de d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te ntwit h i ts op in io n. Magwo od

v. Pat te rs on , __U.S. __ , 13 0 S . Ct. 2 78 8, 2 80 3 (2 01 0)
. Init s s up pl em en ta l b rie fin g o n re m an d, t he Sta te ag ai n c on te nd s t he di st ric t
co urt erredin gra nt in g re li ef o n t he fai r-warn in g c la im be cau se th e cl ai m

is (1 ) pr oc edur al ly defau lt ed , and(2) m eri tl es s. Ma gwo odass ert s t hi s cl ai m is no t pr oc edur al ly defau lt edan d t ha t Kyz er un fo res eeab ly sug ge st edth atMag woo d’s cri m e was a de ath- el ig ib le off en se . Mag woo d fu rth er co nt en ds th e Alaba m a Supr em e Co urt h as subs eque nt ly m ad e cl ear t ha t Kyz er ’s di ct a, on whi ch Mag woo d’s d eat h s en te nc e was ba se d, was ne ve r th e la w. Thi s ca se pre se nt s a u ni qu e si tu at io n. Th e Alaba m a Supr em e Co urt’s in te rp ret at io n o f it s d eat h p en al ty statut e in Kyz er –th atth e ch arg e av erre d i n t he in di ct m en t ca n b e u se d a s t he ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce fo r a jud ge to im po se th e de ath p en al ty–p ro vi de d t he requi red , andon ly, “ ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce” f or Mag woo d t o re cei ve th e d eat h p en al ty whe n h e was res en te nc edin 19 86
. Se e Kyz er , 39 9 S o. 2 d a t 3 37 -3 8. In 20 06 , ho wev er, the Alab am a Supr em e Co urt h el d th e p ert in en t l an gu ag e in Kyz er was bo th (1) in co rrec t an d ne ver th e la w of Alab am a, an d (2 ) di ct a. Ex pa rt e Ste ph en s , 98 2 S o. 2 d 1 14 8, 1 15 2- 53 (Ala . 20 06 ). 3Mag woo d i s an an om al y on Alab am a’s de ath ro w. Accor di ng to Mag woo d’s
co un se l, Ma gwo odis th e so le pe rs on on Alab am a’s de ath ro w witho utan ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce fo r hi s cr im e, an d i s t he on ly pers on on Alab am a’s de ath
ro w who se cas e is affe ct edby St ep he ns . Bas edon a cl ear r ead in g o f Alaba m a law, we con cl ud e th atMag woo d was
no t el ig ib le forth e d eat h p en al ty. Mag woo d i s en ti tl edto habe as rel ie f be cau se hi s de ath s en te nc e v io la te d the fai r-warn in g re qu ire m en t o f th e Due Pro ces s C laus e 3
as itwas b as edon Kyz er , whi ch was a n “ un fo res eeab le an d re tro act iv e jud ic ia l
ex pa ns io n o f na rro w andpre ci se st atut ory lan gu ag e.” Bou ie v. Ci tyof Co lu mbi a , 37 8 U.S. 3 47 , 35 2, 8 4 S . Ct. 1 69 7, 1 70 2 (1 96 4)
. I. BACKGROUND A. Fact ua l b ac kgro un d The fact s o f Mag woo d’s o ffen se are n otin di sp ut e. They are se t fo rth in an op in io n b y

th e Alaba m a Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s, as fol lo ws: Tho m as W eek s, a C of

fee C ou nt y

Depu ty Sheri ff, te st ifi edhe was em pl oyed as th e co un ty j ai le r on Marc h 1 , 19 79 , un de r Co ffee Co un ty Sh eri ff Nei l Gra nt ha m . The wi tn es s s ta te d h e o bs erv ed[Mag woo d], who m he reco gn iz edas aform er jai l i nm at e, si tt in g i n acar p ark edin

Be causeMagwood is entitled to relief f rom his death sente nce on this cla im, we do not 3 decide the State’s other

issue on appea l–whether the district court e rre d when it conc luded the state cour t’s reje ction of Magwood’s inef fec tive assistance of counse l claim was unre asonable
. Nor do we decide the multiple resentenc ing issues that Mag wood asser ts in his cross-appea l. 4Sh eri ff Gran th am ’s parki ng sp ace a t ap pr ox im at el y 6: 45 a.m . Sho rtl y be fo re 7 :0 0 a .m ., he o bs erv edSh eri ff Gran th am dri ve up an d p arkhi s ve hi cl e. He go t o utof t he au to m ob il e, walk edto so m e g arb ag e can s an d d ep os it eda tr as h b ag , andth enwalk edto ward s t he jail do or . [Ma gwo od ] go t o utof h is au to m ob il e wit h s om ethi ng in hi s h an d a nd m etSh eri ff Gran th am

at t he rear o f th e car . At th atpo in t, Dep uty W eek s h eardth ree g un sh ot s an d s aw Sh eri ff Gran th am fal l. The wit ne ss th entu rn edba ckin to th e jail an d o bt ai ne d agu n. He ob se rv ed[Mag woo d] ge t b ackin to hi s ca r an d s aw th athe he lda pi st ol in hi s h an d. He ex ch an ge d fi re wi th [Mag woo d] as h e dro ve away. Depu ty W eek s t he n wen t o ve r to wher e Sh eri ff Gran th am lay on th e g ro un d a ndob se rv edth atth e Sh eri ff’s fac e was bl ue an d t ha t he ap pe aredno t t o b e b reat hi ng , hav in g app aren tl y be enhi t i n t he face an d n eck . Depu ty W eek s s ta te d h e o bs erv edno on e el se inth e areaat t he ti m e th e Sh eri ff was ki ll ed
. Magwo od

v. St at e , 42 6 S o. 2 d 9 18 , 92 0 (Al a. Cri m . App . 19 82 ). B. Proc ed

ur al ba ckgro un d Mag woo d m

ur de redSh eri ff Gran th am on Marc h 1 , 19 79
. Id
. Mag woo d
was co nv ic te d a ndsen te nc edto de ath fo r th e m ur de r in Ju ne 19 81
. Id. at 9 20 n.1
. On d ire ctap pe al , th e Alaba m a Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s an d t he Alab am a Supr em e Co urt af

firm edMag woo d’s co nv ic ti on an d d eat h s en te nc e. Id
. at 9 29 , af f’d Ex pa rt e Magw oo d , 42 6 S o. 2 d 9 29 , 93 2 (Al a. 19 83 ), cert . den ie d 4 62 U.S. 11 24 , 10 3 S . Ct. 3 09 7 (1 98 3)
. On J ul y 13 , 19 83 , Mag woo d fi le d ape ti ti on forwritof e rro r co ram no bi s i n th e Ci rcu itCo urt o f Co ffee Co un ty. Magwo od v. St at e , 44 9 S o. 2 d 1 26 7, 1 26 7 (Ala . Cri m . App . 19 84 ). Thi s p et it io n was de ni edan d o n M arch 20 , 19 84 , th e 5Alab am a Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s af firm edth e d en ia l o f th e co ram no bi s pe ti ti on . Id. at 1 26 8. Mag woo d t he n fi le d a28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 p et it io n fo r writof h ab eas co rp us in th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Al ab am a. On M arch 26 , 19 85 , th e d is tri ctco urt uph el d M ag woo d’s co nv ic ti on bu t co nd it io na ll y gra nt ed th e wri t as to th e se nt en ce, b as edonth e fai lu re o f th e se nt en ci ng co urt t o fi ndtwo
m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces . Magwo od v. Smi th , 60 8 F . Sup p. 2 18 , 22 5- 26 (M.D. Ala. 1 98 5) . This Co urt af firm edth e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on . Magwo od v. Smi th , 79 1 F .2d14 38 , 14 50 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). A res en te nc in g h eari ng was c on du ct edon Sep te m be r 17 , 19 86
. Magwo od

v. St at e , 54 8 S o. 2 d 5 12 , 51 3 (Al a. Cri m . App . 19 88 ). On Oct ob er 2 , 19 86 , th e Alab am a tr ia l co urt, af

te r co ns id eri ng th e ad di ti on al m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces as or de redby the fed eral di st ric t co urt, ag ai n s en te nc edMag woo d t o d eath. Id
. The Alab am a Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s an d t he Alab am a Supr em e Co urt af firm ed Mag woo d’s re se nt en ci ng . Id
. at51 6, af

f’d , 54 8 S o. 2 d 5 16 (Ala . 19 88 ), cert
. de ni ed49 3 U.S. 9 23 , 11 0 S . Ct. 2 91 (19 89 ). Mag woo d fi le d a n app li cat io n i n t hi s C ou rt f orpe rm is si on to fil e a s eco nd habe as co rp us pe ti ti on inth e d is tri ctco urt ch al le ng in g h is co nv ic ti on , whi ch we de ni ed
. In re Ma gw oo d , 11 3 F .3d15 44 , 15 53 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). Mag woo d fi le d a 6se co ndhabe as pe ti ti on ch al le ng in g h is res en te nc in g o n Ap ril 23 , 19 97 . The

di st ric t co urt g ran te d i n p artan d d en ie d i n p artMag woo d’s s eco ndhabe as pe ti ti on . Magwo od

v. Cu ll iv er , 48 1 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 26 2, 1 29 5 (M .D. Ala. 20 07 ).

II. ANALYSIS To d et erm in e whe th er t he ap pl ic at io n o f Kyz er to Mag woo d’s ca se was a vi ol at io n o f th e fai r-warn in g re qu ire m en t o f th e Due Pro ces s C laus e we m us t fi rs t
se t o utth e rel ev an t p orti on s o f Alaba m a’s de ath p en al ty statut e atth e ti m e o f Mag woo d’s o ffen se . W e th endi sc us s t he effe ctof Kyz er an d St ep he ns on Mag woo d’s el ig ib il it y

forth e d eat h p en al ty. Fin al ly, we co nc lu de Mag woo d c an ov erco m e an y

pro cedur al de fau ltan d t ha t the ap pl ic at io n o f Kyz er vi ol at edth e fai r-warn in g re qu ire m en t o f th e Due Pro ces s C laus e. A. The 1 97 5 Act Mag woo d m

ur de redSh eri ff Gran th am on Marc h 1 , 19 79 . At th atti m e, Alab am a’s de ath p en al ty statut e p ro vi de d i n Al ab am a Co de § 1 3- 11 -2 (a)( 5) (1 97 5) : 4 (a) If th e jury fin ds th e d efen da ntgu il ty, itsh al l fi x t he pu ni sh m en t at de ath wh enth e d efen da ntis ch arg edby ind ic tm en t wi th an y of t he fo ll owi ng off

en se s an d wi th ag gr av at io n, wh ic h m us t al so be av erre d in th e in di ct m en t, an d wh ic h o ffen se s s o c ha rg edwit h s ai d ag gr av at io n s ha ll no t i nc lu de an y les se r of fen se s:
Unless otherw ise indicated, a ll cites to the Alabama Code are to the 1975 version. 4 7(5 ) The m ur de r of an y po li ce o ffi cer, s he rif

f, de pu ty, st at e tro op er o r pe ace o ffi cer o f an y ki nd , or p ris onor jai l g uard whi le su ch pri so n o r jail gu ardis on du ty or be cau se of s om e of fic ia l o r job -rel at edactor p erfo rm an ce o f su ch off ic er o r gu ard
. Alab am a Co de § 1 3- 11 -4 , ent it le d “ Dete rm in at io n o f se nt en ce b y co urt; co urt n ot bo un d b y pu ni sh m en t fi xe d b y

jury” pro vi de d: Not wit hs ta nd in g t he fix in g o f th e p un is hm en t atde ath b y th e jury, the co urt, af te r wei gh in g t he ag gr av at in g a ndm it ig at in g c irc um st an ces , m ay refu se to acce ptth e d eat h p en al ty as fi xe d b y th e jury and se nt en ce the de fen da ntto li fe i m pr is on m en t wi th ou t p aro le , whi ch sh al l b e se rv edwit ho utpa ro le ; o r th e co urt, af te r wei gh in g t he ag gr av at in g a ndm it ig at in g c irc um st an ces , andth e fi xi ng of t he pu ni sh m en t atde ath b y

th e jury, m ay

acco rd in gl y

sen te nc e th e de fen da ntto de ath. If t he co urt i m po se s a s en te nc e o f de ath, i t s ha ll se t fo rth in writ in g, as th e b as is forth e se nt en ce o f de ath, fi nd in gs of factfro m th e tr ia l an d t he sen te nc e h eari ng , wh ic h s ha ll at lea st in cl ude th e fo ll ow in g : (1 ) One or m or e o f th e ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces enum erat ed in sec ti on 13 -1 1- 6, wh ic h i t fi nd s ex is ts in th e cas e an d wh ic h i t fin ds su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt the sen te nc e o f de ath . . . . (em ph as is ad de d)
. Mag woo d’s cr im e, th e m ur de r of a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer, i s n otli st edas on e o f th e ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces in § 1 3- 11 -6 . Add it io na ll y , th e res en te nc in g co urt s pe ci fic al ly fou ndth atMag woo d’s cr im e d idno t qua li fy hi m foran y of t he ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces enum erat edin § 1 3- 11 -6
.

8Thu s, al th ou gh Mag woo d’s co nv ic ti on un de r § 1 3- 11 -2 (a)( 5) for cedth e jury

to fix th e p un is hm en t atde ath, t he jud ge co ul d n on ethe le ss ha ve sen te nc ed Mag woo d t o l ife im

pr is on m en t wi th ou t p aro le . Mag woo d a ss ert s t ha t u nd er § 13
- 11 -4 , th e jud ge was re qu ire d t o s etfor th anag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce fr om § 1 3- 11 -6 . Mag woo d c on te nd s t ha t b ecau se he in di sp ut ab ly didno t h av e an ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce l is te d i n § 13 -1 1- 6, t he jud ge was re qu ire d t o s en te nc e hi m to li fe i m pr is on m en t. B. Ex p art e Ky zer Ky zer was tri edan d c on vi ct edun de r Alaba m a’s 19 75 de ath p en al ty statut e, § 1 3- 11 -2 (a)( 10 ), fo r fi rs t d eg ree m ur de r “ whe rei n t wo o r m or e h um anbe in gs are in te nt io na ll y

ki ll edby the de fen da ntby one or aser ie s o f act s.” Kyz er , 39 9 S o. 2 d at33 2. Th e Alaba m a Supr em e Co urt co nc lu de d the re was anev id en ti ary ba si s fo r le ss er i nc lu de d o ffen se in st ru ct io ns in Ky zer’s ca se , andth us rev ers edan d
rem an de d fo r a n ew tr ia l t o b e co nduc te d i n c on fo rm an ce wi th Beck v. Al ab ama , 44 7 U.S. 6 25 , 10 0 S . Ct. 2 38 2 (1 98 0)
. Kyz er , 39 9 S o. 2 d a t 3 33
. 5
In Bec k v. A labama , the United States Supreme Court f ound fault with the Alaba ma 5 death pe nalty

scheme beca

use it failed to allow a

jury in a ca pital case to consider lesse r included, nonca

pital offe nses. 447 U.S. 625, 627-28, 100 S. Ct. 2382, 2384-85 (1980). On rema nd, the Alaba

ma Supreme Court de termined the pr eclusion cla use could be remove d from the statute, allowingthe Alaba ma rule on le sser include d offe nses in noncapital c ases to apply to capital c ases. Bec k v. State, 396 So. 2d 645, 658-59 (Ala. 1980)
. The Ala bama Supre me Court further decide d the statute re quired jury participation in the sentencingproce ss, and cr eate d the nece ssary proce dures by

addingan additional stag e to the trial of a capital c ase. Id. at 659-62. 9The Alab am a Supr em e Co urt wen t o n t o a ddres s t he is su e o f whe th er t he

de ath p en al ty w ou ldbe anav ai labl e o pt io n t o t he Sta te if Kyzer was re tri ed
. Ky zer, l ik e Ma gwo od , was co nv ic te d o f anag gr av at edoff en se in § 1 3- 11 -2 for whi chth e le gi sl atur e fai le d t o p ro vi de a co rres po nd in g a gg rav at in g c irc um st an ce in § 1 3- 11 -6 . The Al ab am a Supr em e Co urt s ta te d: “ [t]hi s ca se pre se nt s i n p ur es t fo rm anan om al y

in Alab am a’s Death P en al ty Statut e.” Id
. at33 4. Th e Alaba m a Supr em e Co urt co nc lu de d “ [a] lit eral an d t ech ni cal read in g o f th e st atut e” wo ul d le adto th e co nc lu si on th atif t he tri al jud ge can no t fi ndth e ex is te nc e o f an ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce o th er t ha n t he ch arg e av erre d i n the in di ct m en t, t he tri al jud ge m us t re fu se to acce ptth e d eat h p en al ty as fi xe d b y th e jury. Id
. at 3 37 . The Alab am a Supr em e Co urt co ul d t hi nkof n o re as on th e Alaba m a le gi sl atur e wou ld ha ve im po se d s uc h ares ul t, h owe ve r, an d c on cl ud edth e tr ia l ju dg e is au th or iz ed to us e th e ch arg e av erre d i n t he in di ctm en t i n l ie u o f an ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce li st edin § 1 3- 11 -6 to im

po se a se nt en ce o f de ath. Id
. at 3 37 -3 8. C. Ex p art e St ep he ns In20 06 , th e Alaba m a Supr em e Co urt h el d t he di sc us si on in Kyz er reg ard in g th e ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces in sen te nc in g was di ct a an d “ co m pl et el y irr el ev an t to ou r de ci si on .” Ex pa rt e Ste ph en s , 98 2 S o. 2 d a t 1 15 2- 53 . The Al ab am a Supr em e Co urt re

jecte d the co nc lu si on th atth e jury andth e tr ia l ju dg e co ul d fi nd 10th e ch arg e av erre d i n t he in di ct m en t as th e ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce ev enth ou gh

th e ch arg e is no t l is te d i n § 13 -1 1- 6 as a n a gg rav at in g c irc um st an ce. Id
. at11 53
. 6 The Co urt s ta te d “

Kyz er di d n ot‘ ho ld ’ an yth in g wi th res pe ctto sen te nc in g,” an d it s d is cu ss io n o f ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces “ was pre m atur e an d s ho ul d n otbe pe rs ua si ve .” Id
. The Co urt re as on ed : [T]he d ic tain Kyz er co nf li ct s wi th th e p la in lan gu ag e o f th e Alaba m a Cri m in al Co de (as th e Kyz er Co urt i ts el f ackno wled ge d) . Sect io n [1 3- 11 -6 ] st at es th at“ [a]gg rav at in g c irc um st an ces sh al l b e th e fo ll owi ng .” The lan gu ag e “ sh al l b e”– as op po se d t o “ sh al l i nc lu de ”– in di cat es th at th e li stis in te nd edto be ex cl us iv e. . . . Our di cta t o the co ntra ryin Ky zerwa s i nc or re ct . Id
. (em ph as is ad de d)
. D. W he th er Magwo od

wa s el ig ib le fo r the de ath p en al ty Mag woo d’s cl ai m

an d t he Sta te ’s app eal are b as edon th e retro act iv e ap pl ic at io n o f

Kyz er to hi s ca se . The Al ab am a Supr em e Co urt h as he ldin
un am bi gu ou s, cl ear l an gu ag e th at Kyz er is in co rrec t. Thu s, we m us t d et erm in e whe th er Ma gwo od ’s dea th sen te nc e v io la te d t he fai r-warn in g re qu ire m en t o f th e

Although Stephens ref

ers to § 13A- 5-49, the opinion specif ically states that § 13A-5- 49 6 was pre viously

§ 13-11-6 ( 1975). Stephens , 982 So. 2d at 1152. Additionally , Ky zer was convicted unde r the 1975 statute. Kyzer , 399 So. 2d at 332. To the extent the St ate a rgues that Stephens expresses no opinion on the 1975 statute, that argument is meritless. 11Due Pro ces s C laus e whe n t he cas e th atwas re tro act iv el y ap pl ie d t o h im

ha s s in ce be enhe ldto be di ct a an d i nc orrect ly deci de d. 7 St ep he ns tel ls us th at Kyz er sh ou ldno t h av e ap pl ie d t o M ag woo d’s ca se . The refo re, Ma gwo odwas n oteli gi bl e fo r th e d eat h p en al ty at th e ti m e o f hi s co nv ic ti on . Reg ard le ss of t he co nc lu si on th atMag woo d was in el ig ib le forth e de ath p en al ty und er Al ab am a la w, we m us t s ti ll co ns id er wh ethe r Mag woo d h as es tabl is he d aco ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n upo n wh ic h fe de ral habe as rel ie f m ay be gr an te d. E. Proc ed

ur al de fa ul t The Sta te fir starg ue s M ag woo d h as pro cedur al ly defau lt edhi s co ns ti tu ti on al cla im

th athe di d n otha ve fai r warn in g b y fai li ng to rai se itin th e St at e co urts . Eve n a ss um in g, ar gu en do , th atMag woo d d idno t s uf fic ie nt ly rais e th is cla im , any pro cedur al de fau ltis ex cu se d b ecau se Mag woo d m eet s t he tes t o f be in g a ctua ll y

in no cen t o f th e d eat h p en al ty, as ex pl ai ne d i n Sa wye r v. Whi tl ey , 50 5 U.S. 3 33 , 34 6- 47 , 11 2 S . Ct. 2 51 4, 2 52 3 (1 99 2)
. “ Sa wye r ex cu se s p ro cedur al de fau lt
. . . whe n ape ti ti on er s ho ws b y cle ar an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e th at , bu t fo r We are not cer

tifying this question to the Alabama Supreme Court be cause the answe r 7 is settled. We certify

questions to that Court when “we find no controllingprec edent on point under A labama la

w and [] t he re solution of th[ e] appea l hinge s on [an] unsettled aspec t of Alabama law.” See O hio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Holcim ( US) , Inc. , 548 F.3d 1352, 1358 ( 11th Cir. 2008). He re, A labama’ s prec edent c ould not be clea rer , the “dicta

. . . in Kyzer was incor

rec t.” Stephens , 982 So. 2d at 1153. 12a co ns ti tu ti on al erro r, no reas on ab le juro r wou ldha ve fou ndth e p et it io ne r el ig ib le

fo r th e d eat h p en al ty und er t he ap pl ic ab le st at e la w.” Ca de v. Hal ey , 22 2 F .3d 12 98 , 13 08 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d)
. The a ctua l i nn oc en ce requi rem en t fo cu se s o n t ho se ele m en ts th atren de r a d efen da nteli gi bl e fo r th e de ath p en al ty. Sa wye r , 50 5 U.S. at34 5, 1 12 S. Ct. at25 22 . This Co urt h as ex pl ai ne d t ha t “ th e actua l i nn oc en ce ex cep ti on ap pl ie s t o c on st itut io na l erro rs in cap it al sen te nc in g o nl y

when th e co ns ti tu ti on al erro r res ul te d i n t he pe ti ti on er be co m in g s ta tu to ril y

eli gi bl e fo r a d eat h s en te nc e th atco ul d n otot he rwis e h av e be enim po se d.” Gil be rt

v. Uni te d Sta te s , 64 0 F .3d12 93 , 13 20 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (en ba nc ); se e a ls o C

ade , 22 2 F .3dat 1 30 8 (“ [A] sho win g o f actua l i nn oc en ce ca n on ly refer t o t ho se st at e-l aw requi rem en ts th atm us t b e sa ti sf

ie d t o i m po se th e de ath p en al ty, i.e. , th e el em en ts of t he cap it al cri m e an d m in im um requi red ag gr av at in g fa ct or s.”)
. Here, t he on ly agg rav at io n fo un d b y th e se nt en ci ng bo dy was th e m ur de r ch arg e in th e in di ct m en t. St ep he ns tel ls us th atth e ch arg e o f th e m ur de r of a la w en fo rcem en t o ffi cer s ho ul d n otha ve be enus edas a n a gg rav at in g c irc um st an ce t o im po se th e d eat h p en al ty, as itwas n otli st edin § 1 3- 11 -6
. Se e Ste ph en s , 98 2 S o. 2dat 1 15 3.

13W e co nc lu de th atbu t fo r th e al le ge d v io la ti on of t he fai r-warn in g

requi rem en t o f th e Due Pro ces s C laus e, th e jud ge co ul d n otha ve fou ndan y st atut ory ag gr av at in g fa ct or s an d M ag woo d was th eref or e in el ig ib le forth e d eat h pe na lty . Se e Gil be rt , 64 0 F .3dat 1 32 0. Th us , eve n i f Mag woo d’s cl ai m is pr oc edur al ly defau lt ed , he i s t he rare cap it al de fen dantwho m eet s Sa wye r ’s actua l in no cen ce ex cep ti on an d h is pro cedur al de fau ltis ex cu se d. Se e S aw yer , 50 5 U.S. at34 6- 47 , 11 2 S . Ct. at25 23 . W e tu rnno w to th e co ns ti tu ti on al erro r th at Mag woo d h as est ab li sh ed
. F. Fair wa rn in g As an in it ia l m at te r, be cau se Mag woo d arg uabl y pro cedur al ly defau lt edth is cl ai m , we do no t h av e a s ta te co urt ad jud ic at io n o f hi s fa ir- warn in g c la im an d o ur

“ rev ie w is no t s ub

ject t o t he de fere nt ia l s ta nd ardth atap pl ie s u nd er [t he Ant it erro ris m

an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ctof 1 99 6] to an y cla im th atwas ad jud ic at edon th e m eri ts in Sta te co urt p ro ceed in gs .” Se e Co ne v. Bell , 55 6 U.S. 44 9, 1 29 S. Ct. 1 76 9, 1 78 4 (2 00 9) (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . “ In st ead , th e cl ai m is
rev ie wed de no vo .” Id
. Due pro ces s p ro hi bi ts th e ret ro act iv e ap pl ic at io n o f jud ic ia l i nt erp ret at io ns of cri m in al st atut es th atare “ un ex pe ct edan d i nd efen si bl e b y refe ren ce t o t he law whi chha d b een ex pr es se d p rio r to th e co nduc t i n i ss ue .” Rog er s v. Te nn es se e , 53 2 14U.S. 45 1, 4 61 , 12 1 S . Ct. 1 69 3, 1 70 0 (2 00 1) (qu ot in g Bou ie v. Cit y o f Co lu mbi a , 37 8 U.S. 3 47 , 35 4, 8 4 S . Ct. 1 69 7, 1 70 3 (1 96 4) . In Bou ie , th e Supr em e Co urt st at edth at“ a d ep riv at io n o f th e ri gh t o f fai r warn in g c anres ul t . . . fro m an un fo res eeab le an d re tro act iv e jud ic ia l ex pa ns io n o f na rro w andpre ci se st atut ory la ng ua ge .” Bou ie , 37 8 U.S. at35 2, 8 4 S . Ct. at17 02 (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . “ If a jud ic ia l co ns tru ct io n o f a cri m in al st atut e is un ex pe ct edan d i nd efen si bl e b y refe ren ce t o t he law wh ic h h adbe enex pr es se d p rio r to th e co nduc t i n i ss ue , it
m us t n otbe gi ve n re tro act iv e eff ect .” Id
. at35 4, 8 4 S . Ct. 1 70 3. Rog er s lat er cl ari fie d t ha t i f a jud ic ia l d eci si on is a “ ro ut in e ex erci se of c omm on law de ci si on m ak in g i n wh ic h t he co urt b ro ug htth e la w in to co nf orm ity wit h re as on an d c omm on sen se ” rat he r th an“ a m ark edan d u np red ic tabl e d ep artur e fro m pri or pr eced en t,” i ts ret ro act iv e ap pl ic at io n t o c on du ctth atoc cu rredbe fo re t he de ci si on was m ad e wou ldno t co nt rav en e th e fai r-warn in g p rin ci pl e o f th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se . Rog er

s , 53 2 U.S. at46 7, 1 21 S. Ct. at17 03
.

“ Alt ho ug h p et it io ne r’s cl ai m is on e o f du e p ro ces s, the Co ns ti tu ti on ’s Ex Pos t Fa ct o Claus e fi gu res pro m in en tl y in hi s ar gu m en t.” Se e id
. at45 6, 1 21 S. Ct. at16 97 . This claus e p ro vi de s tha t “ ‘[n]o Sta te sh al l . . . pas s an y . . . ex po stfact o Law.’ ” Id
. (qu ot in g U.S.Co ns t. art. I, § 10 , cl. 1 ). The Ex Pos t Fa ct o Claus e pr oh ib it s fo urdi st in ctcat eg or ie s o f le gi sl at iv e act io n: laws th at(1) m ak e in no cen t 15co nduc t cr im in al , (2) “ ag gr av at e[] a crim e, orm ak e[] it g reat er t ha n i t was , when

co m m it te d; ” (3 ) “ ch an ge [] the pu ni sh m en t, an d i nf li ct [] a grea te r pu ni sh m en t,” a nd (4 ) “ al te r[] th e le ga l ru le s o f ev id en ce . . . in ord er t o c on vi ctth e o ffen de r.” Id
. (quo ti ng Ca lder

v. Bul l , 3 Dal l. 3 86 , 39 0 (1 79 8) ). Altho ug h t he Ex Pos t Fa ct o cl au se de al s wi th leg is la ti ve act io n, t he Supr em e Co urt h as ob se rv edth at

“ li m it at io ns on ex p os t f

ac to jud ic ia l d eci si on m ak in g a re i nh eren t i n the no ti on of du e p ro ces s.” Id
. Mag woo d’s due pro ces s cl ai m fal ls in to th e th ird Ca lder cat eg ory . The St at e as se rts th at Bou ie on ly deal t wi th Ca lder ’s firs t ca te go ry , andth atth e Supr em e Co urt cl ari fie d i n Rog er s th at“ no whe re i n t he [ Bou ie ] op in io n d idwe go so far as to in co rp or at e jot -fo r-jotth e sp eci fic cat eg or ie s o f Ca lder in to du e pr oc es s l im it at io ns on th e ret ro act iv e ap pl ic at io n o f jud ic ia l d eci si on s.” Id
. at 4 59 , 12 1 S . Ct. at16 99
. The Sta te co nt en ds th e Supr em e Co urt h as no t i nc or po rat ed th e th ird Ca lder

cat eg ory , retro act iv el y

in crea si ng pu nish men t , in to th e Due Pro ces s C laus e. Thi s C irc ui t h as ne ve r de ci de d t hi s i ss ue . Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Dun ca n , 40 0 F .3d12 97 , 13 07 n.1 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (“ as su m [in g] ar gu en do , wit ho utde ci di ng , th at Rog er s ’ fai r warn in g p rin ci pl e d oe s ap pl y to ret ro act iv e in crea se s o f pu ni sh m en t as well as t o t he co re Ca lder cat eg ory of r etro act iv e cri m in al iz at io n o f co nduc t” ). 16If, as th e St at e su gg es ts , we dec li ne to ex te nd Ca ld er ’s th irdcat eg ory

to Bou ie ’s ho ld in g i n acap it al cas e, itwou ldne ces sa ril y “ m ean th atno jud ic ia l
ex pa ns io n o f a d eat h- qu al ifyin g [a gg rav at in g] cir cu m st an ce co ul d e ve r be ch al le ng edun de r Bou ie on retro act iv it y gro un ds .” Se e Cl ark v. Bro wn , 45 0 F .3d 89 8, 9 12 (9t h C ir. 2 00 6) . Even th ou gh th e Supr em e Co urt h as no t ex pl ic it ly in co rp or at edth e ret ro act iv e in crea se of p un is hm en t i nt o i ts Bou ie ho ld in g, we ar e m in df ul th at“ de ath i s a d iff

eren t k in d o f pu ni sh m en t fr om an y ot he r whi chm ay

be im po se d i n t hi s co un try.” Gar dn er v. Flo ri da , 43 0 U.S. 3 49 , 35 7, 9 7 S . Ct. 1 19 7, 12 04 (19 77 ). Sa wye r in stru ct s u s t ha t co nv ic ti ng so m eo ne of acap it al off en se as op po se d t o ano n- cap it al on e is no t a m ere e nh an cedsen te nc e, itis a se nt en ce fo r whi chon e can be “ in no cen t.” Sa wye r , 50 5 U.S. at34 5, 1 12 S. Ct. at25 22 . Thu s, whi le we ex pr es s n o o pi ni on in th e co nt ex t o f no n- cap it al cas es , we con cl ud e th at a cap it al de fen da ntcan rai se a Bou ie fai r-warn in g c ha ll en ge to a jud ic ia l in te rp ret at io n o f a s ta tu te th atin crea se s h is pu ni sh m en t fr om li fe t o d eat h. Se e Clark, 45 0 F .3dat 9 13 -1 6 (c on du ct in g a Bou ie an al y si s o f a d eat h- qu al ifyin g sp eci al cir cu m st an ce s ta tu te to de te rm in e whe th er i t h adbe enim pr op erl y ex pa nd edan d re tro act iv el y ap pl ie d) ; W

eb st er v. W oo df or d , 36 9 F .3d10 62 , 10 73
- 75 (9t h C ir. 2 00 4) (sa m e).

17InMag woo d’s ca se , we con cl ud e th at Kyz er was “ anun fo res eeab le an d

ret ro act iv e jud ic ia l ex pa ns io n o f na rro w andpre ci se st atut ory lan gu ag e.” Se e Bou ie , 37 8 U.S. at35 2, 8 4 S . Ct. at17 02 . Alab am a’s de ath p en al ty statut e pr ov id edth ata jury sho ul d fi x t he pu ni sh m en t atde ath fo r a d efen da ntwho
m ur de rs a la w enf

or cem en t o ffi cer. Al a. Co de § 1 3- 11 -2 . Thu s, M ag woo d’s pu ni sh m en t s ho ul d h av e b een fix edat d eath b y a jury. Howev er, Alaba m a’s st atut ory pro ces s fo r im

po si ng th e d eat h p en al ty didno t en d wi th th e jury fix in g th e p un is hm en t atde ath. Th e jud ge was re qu ire d t o p erfo rm anad di ti on al st ep .

“Not wit hs ta nd in g t he fix in g o f th e p un is hm en t atde ath b y th e jury . . . th e co urt . . . sh al l s etforth in writ in g a s t he ba si s fo r th e se nt en ce o f de ath, fi nd in gs of factfro m th e tr ia l an d t he sen te nc e h eari ng , whi ch sh al l at l eas t i nc lu de
. . . [o ]ne
orm or e o f th e ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces enum erat edin sec ti on 13 -1 1- 6.” Ala. Co de § 1 3- 11 -4 (em

ph as is ad de d) . There is no di sp ut e th at§ 1 3- 11 -6 di d n otha ve a co rres po nd in g a gg rav at in g c irc um st an ce fo r th e cri m e fo r whi ch Mag woo d was
co nv ic te d– th e m

ur de r of a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer. Ad di ti on al ly, th e res en te nc in g co urt s pe ci fic al ly fou ndth atMag woo d’s cr im e d idno t qua li fy hi m foran y of t he ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ces li st edin § 1 3- 11 -6
. Mag woo d b ecame “ el ig ib le ” fo r th e d eat h p en al ty onl y when Kyz er in te rp ret edth e st atut e to all ow t he ch arg e in § 1 3- 11 -2 to be us edinli euof a§ 1 3- 1811 -6 ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce fo r pu rp os es of t he jud ge ’s writ te n s en te nc in g

fin di ng s. The Al ab am a Supr em e Co urt ad m it te d i n Kyz er th at“ [a] lit eral an d 8 te ch ni cal read in g o f th e st atut e” wo ul d n otall ow a d efen da ntto be sen te nc edto de ath abs en t an ag gr av at in g c irc um st an ce as pro vi de d i n § 13 -1 1- 6. Kyz er , 39 9 So . 2dat 3 37 . Mag woo d d idno t h av e fai r warn in g tha t a c ou rt, wh enface d wi th
anun am bi gu ou s s ta tu te , wou ldrejectth e li te ral in te rp ret at io n. Th is co nc lu si on is bu tt res se d b y

th e Alaba m a Supr em e Co urt’s p ro no un cem en t t ha t “ [t]he di ct a in Kyz er co nf

li ct s wi th th e p la in lan gu ag e o f th e Alaba m a Cri m in al Co de ” an d t ha t Kyz er was “ in co rrec t.” St ep he ns , 98 2 S o. 2 d a t 1 15 3. W e co nc lu de th at Kyz er ’s in te rp ret at io n o f th e Alaba m a d eat h p en al ty st atut e was anun ex pe ct edan d i nd efen si bl e co ns tru ct io n o f na rro w andpre ci se st atut ory lan gu ag e. Se e Bou ie , 37 8 U.S. at35 2, 8 4 S . Ct. at17 02 . The

9
This fac t makes the State’s a rgument pursuant to Dobbert v. Florida , 432 U.S. 282, 8 293-94, 97 S. Ct. 2290, 2298 (1977), unpersua sive. In Dobbert , the Supreme Court c oncluded that a cha ng e in Flor ida’s dea

th penalty selec tion procedur e wa s not an ex post facto violation beca use the c hang es in the death penalty statute betwe en the time of the murder a nd time of the trial wer e proc edura l and on the whole a meliorative. In contra st to Magw ood’s ca se, the c hang es in Florida’ s law “a ltered the methods employed in deter mining whe ther the de ath pena lty was to be imposed; there was no changein the quantum of punishment attached to the crime .” Id. at 293-94, 97 S. Ct. at 2298 (emphasis adde d). Unlike Dobbert , the re troac tive application of Kyzer did chang e the qua

ntum of punishment attached to a defe ndant who did not have a n ag gravating circ umstance a s listed in § 13-11-6. To the extent the State argues that Kyzer was e x pecte d and def

ensible by

ref ere nce to 9 the law whic h had bee n expressed prior to Magwood’s conduc t, we re ject that ar gument. See Keller v. State , 380 So. 2d 926, 937 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979) (de cided be fore Magwood committed his crime and invalidatingone of the ag g ravating c ircumstance s weighed ag ainst the 19ap pl ic at io n o f Kyz er to Mag woo d’s ca se vi ol at edth e fai r-warn in g re qu ire m en t o f

th e Due Pro ces s C laus e. Thu s, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f Mag woo d’s habe as pe ti ti on . AFFIRMED.

defe ndant, stating“[t] he first a g g ravating c ircumstance [t hat the ca pital felony

was c ommitt ed while eng ag ed in a r obbery] describes the c rime cha rg ed in the indictment and c annot be use d as both the criminal cha

rg e and the circ umstance a g g ravating that c harg e”) . The c ase c ited by the State purportingto show that Magwood should have ha d fair w arningstates: “An a g g ravating circ umstance is implicit in the statute and nec essar ily is considere d by

the jury when f ix ing punishment.” Harris v. State , 352 So. 2d 479, 284 (Ala. 1977). Ma g wood is not arguing he did not have f

air wa rningthat the jury

would consider his c harg e for murderinga police of

fice r in fix ing his punishment at dea th, Ala. Code §13-11- 2. His argument is that he did not have fa ir war ning that this st atutory

provision could be used in lieu of a n ag g rava ting c ircumstance in § 13-11-6 f

or purpose s of the ultimate sentence of death by the judge
. 20