Source: https://m.openjurist.org/377/f3d/1208/peoples-v-campbell
Timestamp: 2019-11-16 22:22:53
Document Index: 493035538

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 2253', '§ 2253', '§ 2253', '§ 2254', '§ 2254']

377 F. 3d 1208 - Peoples v. Campbell
377 F3d 1208 Peoples v. Campbell
377 F.3d 1208
John W. PEOPLES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
Donal CAMPBELL, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, Attorney General of the State of Alabama, Respondents-Appellees.
The first issue is whether the action of the Childersburg police in stopping Peoples at Wesson's Pharmacy and leading him back to the police station on July 11 amounted to an "illegal arrest" in contravention of his Fourth Amendment32 right to be free from unreasonable seizure because they seized him without a warrant and lacked probable cause to believe that he had committed a felony. If the arrest was illegal, it would appear that the evidence gathered by law enforcement officials subsequent to this "illegal arrest" including (1) the Bill of Sale; (2) the blood-stained shirt and blue jeans; (3) Peoples's boots; (4) his disclosure of the location of the victims' bodies and Paul Franklin's .22 caliber Winchester rifle; and (5) the forensic analysis of physical evidence, should have been suppressed as the fruits of a poisonous tree. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963).
In Tukes v. Dugger, 911 F.2d 508, 513-14 (11th Cir.1990), we said this in applying Stone:"For a claim to be fully and fairly considered by the state courts, where there are facts in dispute, full and fair consideration requires consideration by the fact-finding court, and at least the availability of meaningful appellate review by a higher state court." Peoples concedes that the Alabama trial and appellate courts "considered" his Fourth Amendment claim, but he contends that such consideration was not full and fair because the state courts employed "inconsistent" rationales in rejecting the claim. First, as Peoples correctly observes, the circuit court, in denying his motion to suppress, concluded that the police had probable cause to arrest him for theft of the Corvette on July 11, but (as we indicate in Part II.B, supra) failed to indicate precisely when on July 11 such probable cause arose. Second, the court of criminal appeals, in reviewing the circuit court's denial of Peoples's motion to suppress, concluded that Peoples was arrested after Investigators Traylor and Harmon found the blood-stained clothing in his Talladega Downs apartment in the late afternoon of July 11 — not hours before that at Wesson's Pharmacy. Peoples, 510 So.2d at 569.33 And third, the supreme court concluded that the officers' interaction with Peoples at Wesson's Pharmacy constituted a lawful Terry stop34 — a holding the circuit court and the court of criminal appeals apparently neither reached nor even considered — which encompassed Peoples's trip to the police station, the questions Chief Finn put to him, and his presentment of the Bill of Sale in response to Finn's statement that they wanted to know why the car was listed on the NCIC. The supreme court agreed with the court of criminal appeals that Peoples's arrest did not occur until after Traylor and Harmon found the blood-stained clothing in Peoples's apartment.
Peoples cites no authority in support of his argument that he was not afforded a full and fair hearing because the Alabama courts's analyses of his Fourth Amendment claim were "inconsistent." He acknowledges, as he should, that the supreme court's analysis is coherent and that the court examined the relevant evidence step by step. The court began its analysis by reviewing the circumstances of the officers' engagement with Peoples at Wesson's Pharmacy and then examined what transpired in Chief Finn's office. Then, the court examined what took place at Peoples's Talladega apartment, where the inspectors found the blood-stained clothing. The final element of the Tukes standard is a meaningful appellate review. We have no difficulty in concluding that Peoples obtained meaningful review here. As for the initial element, the record reveals that Peoples had an exhaustive evidentiary hearing of his Fourth Amendment claim on three separate occasions. The first occurred on October 4, 1983. Although the court scheduled the October 4 hearing to take up Peoples's motion to dismiss the indictment (on the ground that the State had granted him immunity from prosecution), the circumstances of Peoples's interaction with the police at Wesson's Pharmacy, Chief Finn at the police station, and Investigators Traylor and Harmon later in the day (in Childersburg, Talladega, and the St. Clair County jail) were presented in considerable detail. The second occasion occurred during trial on December 1 and 2. The third took place on March 12, 1984, when, in considering Peoples's motion for a new trial, the court resolved the controversy over whether the bad check warrant for Peoples's arrest was issued on July 10 or July 12.35 Peoples, therefore, has had ample opportunities to examine his Fourth Amendment claims in state court.
In sum, if ever there was a case for the application of the Stone v. Powell doctrine, this is it. See Cardwell v. Taylor, 461 U.S. 571, 572, 103 S.Ct. 2015, 2016, 76 L.Ed.2d 333 (1983) (per curiam) (finding the Stone v. Powell doctrine applicable where the defendant "argued that evidence used in his trial was the product of an illegal arrest"); Dortch v. O'Leary, 863 F.2d 1337, 1342 (7th Cir.1988) (refusing to reverse state court's Fourth Amendment rulings concerning evidence that was derived from an allegedly illegal arrest because "it is precisely this type of consideration [that] Stone v. Powell precludes.") (citation and quotation marks omitted); Jones v. Superintendent of Rahway State Prison, 725 F.2d 40, 42 (3d Cir.1984) (holding that "consideration of a claim that evidence admitted at trial was the fruit of an illegal arrest could not be considered on a habeas corpus petition so long as the state courts had afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate that claim."). As the district court correctly observed, the doctrine requires that we stay our hand, and we do so.
Peoples did not raise this issue in the state courts until he filed his brief to the Alabama Supreme Court after that court granted his petition for a writ of certiorari.36 In his brief, under Issue XIV, Peoples contended that he was in custody while at Chief Finn's office and that Finn should have advised him of his Miranda rights before asking him any questions (Peoples's "Miranda claim"). The supreme court did not mention Issue XIV in its opinion affirming the court of criminal appeals judgment, however. After addressing two of the fifteen issues Peoples presented in his brief — whether his "detention on July 11, 1983, by the Childersburg police amounted to an illegal arrest" and whether the "evidence from the scene where the bodies ... were found should not have been admitted" — the supreme court stated that it had "carefully reviewed the remaining issues," Ex parte Peoples, 510 So.2d at 575, 577, 578, and had found them insufficient to require the reversal of Peoples's convictions or sentences. We read this statement to mean that the supreme court both considered and rejected Peoples's Miranda claim on the merits.
Wright v. Sec'y for the Dep't of Corr., 278 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 906, 123 S.Ct. 1511, 155 L.Ed.2d 225 (2003), addressed the question we pose: "whether [a] state court's summary, which is to say unexplicated, rejection of the federal constitutional issue qualifies as an adjudication under § 2254(d) so that it is entitled to deference[,]" and answered it as follows, "all that is required [to accord the state court's decision deference] is a rejection of the claim on the merits, not an explanation." Id. at 1254-55. The Supreme Court of Alabama rejection of Peoples's Miranda claim therefore qualifies as an adjudication on the merits. See Ex parte Peoples, 510 So.2d at 575, 577, 578. The district court's task, then, in considering this claim was to determine whether the supreme court's rejection of the claim constituted a "decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts...." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1),(2).
When it ruled on Peoples's habeas petition, the district court did not have the benefit of our Wright decision. The court therefore answered for itself the question of whether Peoples was in custody while in Chief Finn's office and, thus, whether Finn should have advised him of his Miranda rights.37 The court looked to the record of the evidentiary hearings held by the trial court on Peoples's motions to dismiss the indictment, to suppress evidence, and for a new trial — as well as the opinions of the court of criminal appeals and the supreme court — for the factual basis it needed to decide whether Peoples was in custody. First, the district court accepted the supreme court's finding that Peoples was not arrested until sometime after he left the Childersburg police station in the afternoon of July 11.38 Second, the court agreed with the finding of all of the Alabama courts that Chief Finn told Peoples that he was not under arrest. Weighing the circumstances as a whole, the district court found that Peoples "was not under arrest nor was there a `restraint on his freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest' when he produced the bill of sale to Chief Finn." Finally, applying the test established by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 101, 116 S.Ct. 457, 460, 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995), the court concluded that Peoples was not in custody; hence, a Miranda warning was not required.
These circumstances, as presented in the state courts's findings, indicate that a reasonable person in Peoples's situation would not have felt restrained or "deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612. Chief Finn had known Peoples all of Peoples's life; the grandfather of Mrs. Finn (Chief Finn's wife) was the brother of one of Peoples's grandfathers, and Peoples's parents lived in Childersburg, a small town of less than 5,000 inhabitants. Peoples had a habit of issuing bad checks, and when they came to Chief Finn's attention — because the check's recipient got a warrant for Peoples's arrest — Finn would call Peoples's father and the check would be covered.39 Under the circumstances, Peoples had no reason to believe that his "freedom of action" was limited as a result of duress imposed by governmental coercion.
What Peoples did shortly after leaving Chief Finn's office bears this out. Answering the telephone call from his attorney, Ray Robbins, Peoples told Robbins that he did not need his assistance because he and the police were merely discussing the car he had purchased from his friend, Paul Franklin.40 At most, the actions of the Childersburg police in the early afternoon of July 11 constituted "traditional investigatory functions of police where the compulsive atmosphere triggering Miranda is absent." Sullivan v. Alabama, 666 F.2d 478, 482 (11th Cir.1982) (quotation marks omitted). Peoples was not compelled to remain at the station, nor, as his phone conversation with his attorney reveals, did he feel under constraint or duress. Instead, he willingly spoke with Chief Finn and voluntarily produced the Bill of Sale shortly upon his arrival.
In Sullivan, we found that the appellant was not in custody, and therefore not entitled to Miranda warnings, where a police officer's "initial inquiry was merely an attempt to investigate and probe the situation," and the appellant "remained at the station of his own accord and freely answered the questions asked of him." Id. at 482. This reasoning applies with similar force to Peoples's claim before us, particularly since Peoples knew from Chief Finn that he was not under arrest when he volunteered to provide Finn with information about the Corvette. Because Peoples's interactions with the police officers prior to his disclosure of the purported Bill of Sale fall far short of resembling "a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest," Peoples's rights under the Fifth Amendment were not violated. California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 3520, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983) (quotation marks omitted). Hence, the Alabama Supreme Court correctly rejected Peoples's claim. Moreover, we could hardly say that the supreme court's decision "resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States."41 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1); see Beheler, 463 U.S. at 1125, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (holding that defendant was not in custody for Miranda purposes when police told him he was not under arrest even though the police questioned him at the police station). We therefore affirm the district court's denial of Peoples's Miranda claim.
Peoples concedes that he failed to satisfy the "procedural prerequisites" for his Jackson claim43 by not challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on the Paul Franklin murder counts44 before the Alabama appellate courts when he appealed his convictions. He attempts to circumvent this procedural default by contending that permitting his conviction for Paul Franklin's murder to stand would amount to a "fundamental miscarriage of justice" and "the conviction of one who is actually innocent [of the murder]." Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 495-96, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 2649, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986).45
The next issue we address concerns Peoples's claim that the performance of his attorney, William A. Short, Jr., in preparing for trial, at trial, and on appeal, failed to satisfy the Sixth Amendment's effective-assistance-of-counsel standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).46 The district court found the claim procedurally barred and thus refused to entertain it on the merits because (1) Peoples failed to bring the claim to the attention of the Alabama courts; (2) Rule 20 would preclude the Alabama courts from considering the claim at the time Peoples filed the instant habeas petition; and (3) Peoples had not established a lawful basis for excusing the default. Peoples concedes point (2) but questions the district court's rulings on points (1) and (3). As we explain in the ensuing discussion, the district court erred in concluding that Peoples procedurally defaulted his claim. We reach this holding not because we agree with Peoples — that he presented the claim to the Alabama courts — but because the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals declined to enforce the procedural default rule that applies in Rule 20 proceedings.
We find that the court of criminal appeals most likely considered the constitutionality of Short's performance as part of its perceived duty, under Rule 45A of the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, to examine "the record" for plain error.49 See id. at 1179 ("This court, as required by Rule 45A, A.R.A.P., has carefully reviewed the record in this cause."). Rule 45A mandates that
Ala. R.App. P. 45A. (emphasis added).50 The court of criminal appeals interpreted "proceedings under review" to include not only the record of the Rule 20 proceedings in the circuit court, but also the record of the criminal prosecution — at both the trial and appellate stages — as well. Thus, in examining "the record" of such "proceedings" for plain error, the court felt duty bound to determine whether Short had denied Peoples his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel at any time during the criminal prosecution or the Rule 20 proceeding. This is evidenced by the court's statement that Peoples was "fully and fairly represented, not only at original trial and on original appeal, but also at the Rule 20 petition hearing and in his appeal of that proceeding which is presently before the court." Peoples, 565 So.2d at 1180 (emphasis added).51 Adhering to its apparent interpretation of Rule 45A, the court analyzed and evaluated whether Short's representation of Peoples was constitutionally deficient at any time. It answered the question as follows:
We have also carefully considered [Peoples's] assertions with reference to his representation by counsel. We are clear to the conclusion that [Peoples] failed to make out a case of either inadequate or ineffective representation by counsel at trial or on original appeal. [Peoples], in his proof, wholly failed to satisfy either prong as set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Strickland v. Washington. ...
We have carefully reviewed this record again, and the original trial record, with reference to [Peoples's] contentions concerning the ineffective assistance of counsel on his first appeal as a matter of right.... Our own independent search of the record in this cause leads us to the conclusion that the circuit court's findings of fact and conclusions of law... correctly determine the issues in the trial court....
We are thus presented with a unique situation where, in reviewing the denial of post-conviction Rule 20 relief, the court of criminal appeals not only addressed and denied an ineffective assistance claim the petitioner never raised53 — and actually waived in open court — but it disregarded the Alabama rule that claims not presented in a Rule 20 petition are not cognizable on appeal. See Thompson v. State, 581 So.2d 1216, 1219 (Ala.Crim.App.1991) (citing Jackson v. State, 501 So.2d 542 (Ala.Crim.App.1986); Boatwright v. State, 494 So.2d 929 (Ala.Crim.App.1986)). Since Peoples did not challenge Short's effectiveness in his Rule 20 petition, he was barred from raising the challenge in the first instance on appeal. And, as noted in the margin, supra note 49, Rule 45A precluded the court in a Rule 20 proceeding from examining the trial and appellate stages of Peoples's prosecution in an effort to find evidence that Short had deprived his client of a Sixth Amendment right.
Implicit in this holding, however, is the proposition that federal habeas review is not barred if the state courts do not honor their procedural default rules. As we stated in Messer v. Florida, 834 F.2d 890, 893 (11th Cir.1987), "[w]hen the state court has declined to rely upon a procedural default, Campbell v. Wainwright, 738 F.2d 1573 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1126, 106 S.Ct. 1652, 90 L.Ed.2d 195 (1986), ... the procedural default no longer bars consideration of the issue in federal court." In the situation at hand, the court of criminal appeals declined to rely upon the procedural default rule that barred the court from considering, in its review of a Rule 20 disposition, a claim the petitioner failed to assert in his petition. The district court, in denying review of the ineffective assistance claim at issue, invoked this procedural default rule — the very rule the court of criminal appeals had declined to follow. The district court erred in doing so.54 Instead, it should have addressed Peoples's claim.55
To establish prejudice, Peoples "must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. Put another way, Peoples must establish that Short's errors "undermine confidence in the outcome" of the case.56 Id.
Paragraphs 95 through 113 of Peoples's petition describe the ways in which Short's performance failed to satisfy the Sixth Amendment. We quote these in the margin.57 Since in the main they present nothing more than conclusory allegations, an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary. Tejada v. Dugger, 941 F.2d 1551, 1559 (11th Cir.1991) ("A petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing ... when his claims are merely conclusory allegations unsupported by specifics or contentions that in the face of the record are wholly incredible." (quotation marks omitted)). Aside from this pleading deficiency, Peoples's allegations merely invite us to second-guess Short's trial strategy. Whatever that strategy may have been, however, it did not prejudice Peoples's defense. In other words, we are convinced that there is no "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's [allegedly] unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. The district court, therefore, correctly denied relief on this claim.
Peoples's petition for habeas relief contained a claim that Ray Robbins — who represented Peoples between his incarceration in the St. Clair County jail for car theft on July 11 and sometime during the week of July 18 — deprived him of the effective assistance of counsel. The claim alleged four instances in which Robbins performance was defective. The issue we address in this subpart is whether the district court correctly held that Peoples defaulted two of these instances by not presenting them to the state courts58 and that, as of the time he filed the instant petition, the state courts would not entertain them on the merits because of the bar against successive petitions.59 See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275, 92 S.Ct. 509, 512, 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971) ("It has been settled ... that a state prisoner must normally exhaust available state judicial remedies before a federal court will entertain his petition for habeas corpus." (citation omitted)).
Citing language from a footnote in Footman v. Singletary, 978 F.2d 1207, 1211 n. 4 (11th Cir.1992) that reads, "a petitioner need not present all instances of ineffective assistance of counsel to the state court before proceeding to federal court when the state court has reviewed the entire record to evaluate the ineffective assistance claim[,]" Peoples argues that the state circuit and appellate courts, in assessing his claim that Robbins was constitutionally ineffective, examined everything Robbins did — including things not mentioned in the Rule 20 petition. In other words, no matter how narrowly Peoples pled his claim, the mere fact that he made the claim, standing alone, constructively invited the state courts to scour the entire record for any evidence that Robbins deprived him of a Sixth Amendment right. If Footman endorsed the proposition Peoples attributes to it, this argument might have some merit; however, the case actually stands for the converse. Although Peoples's brief selectively quotes from Footman, the panel in that case ultimately ruled, "we agree with the district court's statement of law that a habeas petitioner may not present instances of ineffective assistance of counsel in his federal petition that the state court has not evaluated previously." Id. at 1211. The panel explained its reasoning by noting that "allowing a habeas petitioner to allege a single instance of ineffective assistance in his state post-conviction proceedings and then proceed to federal court to allege additional instances would be contrary to the state's `full and fair opportunity to address the claim on the merits.'" Id.
Peoples does not present us with an argument as to why the logic that guided this court in Footman does not apply here, and we see none. Cf. Hill v. Jones, 81 F.3d 1015, 1021 (11th Cir.1996) ("A court is not obliged to stand by as successive teams of attorneys cull the record and conjure up new arguments for the court to consider. At some point, the court has to assume the parties have made their arguments, and it can begin resolving the disputed issues." (footnote omitted)). Because Peoples failed to raise these two instances of ineffective assistance of counsel in the state courts, he had to demonstrate both cause and prejudice to excuse his procedural default. Id. at 1022. As he failed to do so, the district court correctly ruled that these two instances of ineffective assistance were barred from federal review.60
At about 5:00 p.m. on July 13, about 30 minutes to an hour after leaving Abbott, [Peoples] and [Robbins] were brought from the county jail to the sheriff's office. [Robbins] told Officer Marvin Roy that [Peoples] had some information to add to his prior statement. Then, in the presence of [Robbins] and Officers Harmon and Traylor, [Peoples] stated that the Franklin family was dead. Officer Traylor then asked [Peoples] if he would take them to the bodies. [ ] Abbott was called to come to the sheriff's office, and when he arrived, [Robbins] said "John Peoples is going to tell ya'll some more. All of them are dead." [Peoples] then took the police to the bodies of the Franklin family in Talladega County, in a wooded area just off County Road 377.
Peoples refused to take the test, though, after the polygraph examiner informed Peoples of the questions he would ask him and refused to limit his inquiry to the precise questions Peoples requested. See supra note 13. As the circuit court found in its October 14 order denying Peoples's motion to dismiss the indictment, in its December 2 mid-trial order denying Peoples's motion to suppress, and in its Memorandum Opinion denying Peoples's Rule 20 petition, Peoples, 565 So.2d at 1181-83, assuming that Robbins and Abbott had reached the agreement Robbins had described — the agreement Peoples said they had made but had not been reduced to writing — Peoples breached it by not submitting to the polygraph.61
The second prong of Strickland's ineffective assistance of counsel standard requires that the petitioner "must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. Even if we assume that Robbins's was constitutionally deficient — and, also, that the state courts's determinations to the contrary were "unreasonable" — we are left with the firm conviction that the Rule 20 court's conclusion that Peoples's claim fails for lack of prejudice did not "result[ ] in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States ... or ... result[ ] in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) and (2).62
On the day of [Peoples's] arrest, he told the police that his cousin, Timothy Gooden, had been with him at the Franklin residence when he bought the Corvette. [ ] Gooden was, therefore, questioned by the prosecutor that night. On July 15, two days after [Peoples] had led the police to the bodies ... Gooden, based on his own knowledge of the location, led the police to the same location. We find that ... Gooden's assistance was an independent source as contemplated by that doctrine.
In his Rule 20 petition, Peoples reiterated his Miranda claim, and the circuit court rejected it as not cognizable in a Rule 20 proceeding. He also claimed that his confession to the sheriffs was the product of ineffective assistance of counsel on Robbins's part. In the words of the circuit court, Peoples alleged "that his July 19, 1983 confession was taken in violation of Robbins's instruction to the police and that he was thus denied effective assistance of counsel as to that confession." Peoples, 565 So.2d at 1181.63 The circuit court disposed of this claim thusly:
In his petition to the district court Peoples took a different and contradictory position regarding Robbins's instructions to the police. Instead of alleging that the police had obtained Peoples's confession "in violation of Robbins's instruction to the police," as alleged in his Rule 20 petition, Peoples alleged that Robbins was derelict because "[he] neglected to direct law enforcement authorities not to speak further with his client and merely suggested that they not do so."64 Peoples thus implied that had Robbins firmly instructed law enforcement not to question Peoples, he would not have spoken to the sheriffs on July 19 and confessed to the murders.
Peoples, however, has identified a narrow exception to the "offense specific" rule which some circuits have applied in cases where police questioning on "the pending charge is so inextricably intertwined with the charge under investigation that the right to counsel for the pending charge cannot constitutionally be isolated from the right to counsel for the uncharged offense." United States v. Hines, 963 F.2d 255, 257 (9th Cir.1992).65 Relying on this exception, Peoples contends that because the facts and circumstances underlying the theft-of-the-Corvette charge were so closely related to the facts and circumstances surrounding the murder charge, his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel in the murder case attached no later than July 12, the day immediately following his incarceration in the St. Clair County jail for vehicular theft.
"The Sixth Amendment right [to counsel] ... is offense specific." Id. at 167, 121 S.Ct. at 1340. The Court framed the issue by observing that, "The State sought review in this Court, and we granted certiorari to consider first whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel extends to crimes that are `factually related' to those that have actually been charged, and second whether respondent made a valid unilateral waiver of that right in this case. Because we answer the first question in the negative, we do not reach the second."
The five counts alleged essentially read as follows: Count I, Peoples murdered Paul G. Franklin, Jr. and Judy Franklin by striking them on the head with a rifle or other object, in violation of Ala.Code § 13A-5-40(a)(10) (1975), as amended; Count II, Peoples murdered Paul G. Franklin, Sr. by striking him on the head with a rifle or other object while abducting, or attempting to abduct, him with the intent to inflict physical injury, in violation of Ala.Code § 13A-5-40 (a)(1) (1975), as amended; Count III, Peoples murdered Paul G. Franklin, Jr. by striking him on the head with a rifle or other object while abducting, or attempting to abduct, him, in violation of Ala.Code § 13-A-5-40(a)(1) (1975), as amended; Count IV, Peoples murdered Paul G. Franklin, Sr. by striking him on the head with a rifle or other object while he knowingly and unlawfully entered or remained unlawfully in Paul G. Franklin, Sr.'s dwelling located at Rt. 2, Pell City, Alabama, with the intent to commit the crime of theft therein, and while effecting entry or while in the dwelling or in the immediate flight therefrom Peoples or Timothy Millard Gooden, a participant in said crime, was armed with a rifle, a deadly weapon, in violation of Ala.Code § 13-A-5-40(a)(4) (1975), as amended; Count V, Peoples murdered Paul G. Franklin, Sr. by striking him on the head with a rifle or other object while committing the theft of a 1968 Corvette automobile or a Winchester .22 caliber rifle by threatening the imminent use of force against Paul G. Franklin, Sr., with the intent to compel his acquiescence in the taking or escaping with the property, while Peoples was armed with a deadly weapon, a rifle, in violation of Ala.Code § 13A-5-40 (a)(2) (1975), as amended
As indicated in Part II.B.,infra, the jury, at the conclusion of the sentencing phase of the trial, recommended that Peoples be sentenced to death for each murder by an 11-to-1 vote.
Peoples knew about the Corvette because he had been a member of a work crew that built a fence around the Franklins's backyard and from time to time had performed odd jobs in and around the Franklin residence
Paul Franklin was seriously disabled as a result of shrapnel injuries suffered in Vietnam. His injuries substantially limited his mobility
The State's case-in-chief included handwriting-comparison evidence that the signature Paul G. Franklin was written by Judy Franklin
Paul, Jr.'s blood had caused the stains. Fibers from Paul, Jr.'s pajamas were also found on the shirt and blue jeans
By this time, the police had determined that the stains were blood stains
After Brown finished reading Peoples his rights, Peoples told him that he understood them then repeated that he wanted to speak to the two sheriffs and that he did not want to call a lawyer. He added, however, that he did not want them to write down what he said or to tape record the conversation. The sheriffs agreed to this request
Seesupra note 1.
On August 19, Short also moved the circuit court for a change of venue — to a county where the publicity about the case had been minimal. Short renewed his motion on August 30 and November 11, as the publicity increased. The court denied his motion on each occasion. Venue is not an issue in this appeal; hence, we do not discuss it further
Many pieces of evidence on which the court based its findings of fact were not presented to the jury during the trial. For example, the jury heard nothing about the events that transpired between Traylor and Harmon's search of Peoples's Talladega Downs apartment (where they found the blood-stained shirt and blue jeans) in the afternoon of July 11 and Peoples's note to Officer Woodall on July 19, stating that Peoples wanted to see Sheriff Brown. The same is true with respect to the evidence introduced at the suppression hearing the circuit court held on December 1 and 2 (during Peoples's trial), and at the hearing held on Peoples's motion for a new trialSee infra Parts II.B and II.C. Much of the testimony the court heard at those two hearings was not presented to the jury.
As recounted in Part I,supra, the purported bill of sale stated that Peoples had traded his ownership rights in a supper club in exchange for Paul Franklin's Corvette. Curtis Jackson, the actual owner of the supper club, informed the Chief on July 11 that Peoples did not have the rights in the club that he purported to "trade."
On November 28, Short moved the court to allow Peoples to act as co-counsel during the trial. The court granted the motion. As far as we can tell, however, other than conferring with Short, Peoples remained silent throughout the guilt and penalty phases of the trial
The prosecutor also presented the testimony of the Sheriffs of St. Clair and Talladega Counties, Brown and Studdard, who on July 19 received from Peoples the statement quoted in Part I,supra, and Deputies Brewer and Daniels of the Talladega County Sheriff's Office, whom Peoples led to the location of Paul Franklin's .22 caliber Winchester rifle on July 22. The testimony the deputies gave at the suppression hearing described in the text was essentially repeated before the jury after the court denied Peoples's motion to suppress. See supra Part I.
On March 12, 1984, during Peoples' motion for a new trial, Chief Finn explained that he had known Peoples "all his life" because Finn's grandfather-in-law was the brother of Peoples' grandfather, and Finn spoke with Peoples's father on numerous occasions
This tangible evidence is described in Part I,supra.
The court found the following aggravating circumstances: (1) the "capital offense was committed while the appellant was engaged ... in the commission of ... or flight after committing... robbery," Ala.Crim.Code § 13A-5-49(4) (1975); and (2) the "capital offense was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel compared to other capital offenses," Ala.Crim.Code § 13A-5-49(8) (1975). The court determined that the only mitigating circumstance was the absence of a prior criminal recordSee Ala.Crim.Code § 13A-5-51 (1975).
This warrant was not introduced into evidence at Peoples's trial
The court entered the order on March 12, 1984, following the hearing on Peoples's motion for a new trial
In addition to her job as magistrate, Ella Williams also served as Chief Finn's secretary. Her testimony during the evidentiary hearing on Peoples's motion for a new trial, indicated that she modified the date on the warrant after Chief Finn told her to "take care of" a filing error she had pointed out to the Chief concerning the date on the worthless check warrant
In Alabama, a police officer lacks the authority to effect a misdemeanor arrest without a warrant unless the arrestee commits the offense in the officer's presenceSee Ex Parte Talley, 479 So.2d 1305, 1306 (Ala.1985) ("For an arrest to be valid on a misdemeanor offense which was not witnessed by the arresting officer, the officer must have an arrest warrant in his possession at the time of arrest.").
Rule 20 refers to the Temporary Rule 20 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure (hereafter "Rule 20"). This rule is now Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. Peoples's petition was assigned to the same circuit judge who presided over the prosecution of Peoples's case
The order appears as an Appendix to the court of criminal appeals decision inPeoples, 565 So.2d at 1180-86.
The twenty-six claims were based on the Fifth, Sixth, and/or Eighth Amendments and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Reduced to their essence, they allege the following: (1) Peoples was medicated from the moment the Childersburg police contacted him until after the jury returned its verdicts and, therefore, was unable to assist counsel in the defense of his case; (2) the Childersburg police arrested Peoples outside Wesson's Pharmacy without probable cause, and the evidence used to convict him was the product of such unlawful arrest; (3) Chief Ira Finn obtained the bill of sale and tag receipt for the Corvette during a custodial interrogation at the Childersburg jail without advising Peoples of hisMiranda rights; (4) Chief Finn obtained Timothy Gooden's identification from Peoples during that interrogation; (5) the law enforcement officers investigating the case obtained Peoples's car, papers, clothing, and boots as a result of that unlawful interrogation; (6) the trial court erred in denying Peoples's motion to suppress the evidence mentioned in (3), (4), and (5) above, along with the evidence found at the crime scene, because all such evidence was the product of Peoples's illegal arrest and subsequent unlawful interrogation at the Childersburg jail; (7) the trial court erred in denying Peoples's motion to suppress his statement of July 19, 1983; (8) the trial court erred in denying Peoples's motion to suppress his July 22, 1983 statement regarding the location of the purported murder weapon; (9) the trial court erred in denying Peoples's motion for a change of venue; (10) the trial court's restrictions on the voir dire examination of the jury venire denied Peoples a fair trial; (11) the prosecutor discriminated on the basis of race in exercising the State's peremptory challenges; (12) the trial court erred in denying Peoples's motion for a mistrial during the voir dire of the venire after the prosecutor referred to the possibility that Peoples might not testify; (13) the trial court erred in refusing to excuse for cause venireman Chastain, a reserve Taladega County deputy sheriff who participated in the investigation of the case; (14) the prosecutor's conduct throughout the trial proceedings was pervasively abusive and denied Peoples a fair trial; (15) Peoples's convictions are based on Timothy Gooden's false testimony; (16) the State's conduct in seizing a tape recorder belonging to defense counsel's investigator unduly impaired Peoples's defense; (17) the trial court's refusal to quash the State's subpoena of defense counsel's investigative assistant impaired Peoples's defense; (18) the trial court erred in admitting into evidence an unauthenticated hospital record to connect one of the victims to the murder weapon; (19) the trial court's jury charge in the penalty phase of the trial created the impression that the jury could draw an adverse inference from the defendant's failure to testify; (20) the State presented no evidence that Paul Franklin, Sr. was murdered, thus invalidating Peoples's three murder convictions relating to his death; (21) the trial court erred in the sentencing phase of the trial by allowing the prosecutor to question defense witnesses about a felony charge pending against Peoples and an allegation that he had issued a worthless check; (22) the trial court erred in finding aggravating circumstances and imposing the death sentences; (23) the jury was exposed to extra record information concerning the Franklin family and was thereby rendered partial; (24) the trial court denied Peoples a fair trial by sequestering the jury; (25) the performance of Peoples's attorney prior to Peoples's indictment fell below the minimum standard for constitutionally effective counsel; (26) the performance of Peoples's attorney at trial, on appeal, and in post-conviction proceedings fell below the minimum standard for constitutionally effective counsel.
Before April 24, 1996, the effective date of the AEDPA, a habeas petitioner who had been denied relief had to obtain a CPC from the district court in order to prosecute an appealSee Tompkins v. Moore, 193 F.3d 1327, 1330 (11th Cir.1999); 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (1994). The AEDPA, however, amended 28 U.S.C. § 2253 to require a petitioner to request a certificate of appealability ("COA") instead of a CPC. Unlike the procedure for the issuance of a CPC, under the amended version of section 2253, the district court, when granting a COA, must "indicate [for] which specific issue or issues" the petitioner has "made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), (3).
Although in his petition, Peoples provides us with a shotgun list of constitutional amendments allegedly violated by the police on July 6, 1983, he does not cite, nor do we find, evidence supporting his claim that his rights under the Eighth Amendment were violated. The Sixth Amendment also does not apply since that amendment does not attach until prosecution is commenced "by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment."McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 175, 111 S.Ct. 2204, 2207, 115 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991). We discuss the applicability of the Fourth Amendment to Peoples's "illegal arrest" claim in Part IV.A, infra, and discuss the Fifth Amendment aspect of this argument in Part IV.B, infra.
Since the tag receipt was not introduced into evidence at Peoples's trial, we treat issue (2) as addressing solely the admissibility of the Bill of Sale, which was introduced
The Fourth Amendment applies to States under the Fourteenth AmendmentSee United States v. Davis, 313 F.3d 1300, 1302 (11th Cir.2002) ("The Fourth Amendment, which is applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees that individuals will be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." (quotation marks omitted)).
Ex Parte Peoples, 510 So.2d at 576. Responding to Peoples's argument, the court concluded that given the facts at hand, Peoples's "detention ... was a valid investigatory stop," id. at 577, and that his "detention ... at the Childersburg police station was justified under the circumstances." Id.
When [Peoples] told the officers that this car belonged to him, he became the legitimate subject of investigation. At that point, it was appropriate to relocate the investigation to the police station, as good police work in this instance demanded that the officers have an extended conversation with [Peoples] concerning the particular car that he was attempting to sell.... Having determined that the detention of [Peoples] was a valid investigatory stop, we find that the bill of sale produced by [him] during this stop was admissible. Further, the facts which were uncovered as a result of information contained in the bill of sale supplied probable cause to arrest [Peoples] for theft of the automobile by deception. The evidence obtained as a result of the valid investigatory stop and the subsequent arrest of [Peoples] based on probable cause was properly admitted into evidence.
At the end of the day, it appears that the controversy over whether the warrant was back-dated and by whom is a red herring. The circuit judge, in denying Peoples's motion for a new trial, stated that the warrant played no role — one way or the other — in his decision to deny Peoples's motion to suppress
The supreme court granted Peoples's petition as a matter of right for the purpose of reviewing the court of criminal appeals's decision affirming Peoples's convictions and sentencesEx parte Peoples, 510 So.2d at 575.
In doing so, the court overlooked the fact that the Alabama Supreme Court had answered that question, albeit without explication, and therefore gave the answer no § 2254(d)(1) deference
The supreme court's finding on this issue contained both findings of fact — concerning the relevant circumstances — and a conclusion of law — concerning the legal effect of the findings of fact
Chief Finn testified to this at the hearing on Peoples's motion for a new trialSee supra note 17.
Although the record contains no direct evidence on the point, it admits of strong circumstantial evidence that before Peoples arrived at his office, Chief Finn called Peoples's father and explained why Peoples was coming down to the police station. Peoples's father then called Robbins, who (according to testimony in the record) was representing Peoples in another unrelated matter, and Robbins called Peoples at the Childersburg police station
We also note that a contrary ruling, which would allow individuals to brazenly volunteer information to officers, and then later strike that volunteered information from the record because it was made before officers recited to him or her aMiranda warning — because the individual was not yet in custody at the time — would unwisely handicap law enforcement while providing shrewd criminals with a potential roadmap for evading conviction. See Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 430, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 1145-46, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986) ("The Sixth Amendment's intended function is not to wrap a protective cloak around the attorney-client relationship for its own sake any more than it is to protect a suspect from the consequence of his own candor.").
In support of this claim, Peoples points out that the State physician who conducted Paul Franklin's autopsy was unable to determine the exact cause of Paul Franklin's death. He also notes that the Franklin was in poor health
Peoples has not citedJackson v. Virginia in pursuing his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on the counts charging him with Paul Franklin's murder. Nonetheless, Jackson established the standard we use in evaluating Peoples's claim.
Three counts are at issue here: (1) Count II charging Peoples with the murder of Paul G. Franklin, Sr., during the commission of a first degree kidnaping; (2) Count IV implicating Peoples in the murder of Paul G. Franklin, Sr., during the course of a first degree burglary; and (3) Count V charging Peoples with the murder of Paul G. Franklin, Sr., during the course of a first degree robberySee supra note 1.
UnderWainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 87, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 2506, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977), a federal habeas court can excuse a petitioner's procedural default if the petitioner can show cause for the default and resulting prejudice. Murray v. Carrier, as indicated in the text, provides a second excuse: habeas relief can be granted on a defaulted claim if the petitioner can show that he is "actually innocent" of the offense at issue. 477 U.S. at 496, 106 S.Ct. at 2649. In the district court, Peoples initially attempted to excuse his default by contending that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel when he failed to challenge on direct appeal the sufficiency of the evidence to convict Peoples on the counts involving Paul Franklin. For reasons discussed elsewhere in this opinion, see Part IV.D, infra, this argument is foreclosed.
The Sixth Amendment applies to States via the Fourteenth AmendmentLumley v. City of Dade City, 327 F.3d 1186, 1194 n. 21 (11th Cir.2003)(citing Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963)).
The eleven claims are described in the circuit court's Memorandum Opinion that accompanied the order denying Peoples Rule 20 relief. As noted earlier, the Memorandum Opinion is Appendix A to the court of criminal appeals's opinion affirming the circuit court's orderPeoples, 565 So.2d at 1180-86.
The court or criminal appeals opinion does not indicate that Peoples's case received oral argument, and the record is silent on the issue. We therefore assume for purposes of discussion that the court granted oral argument
The court misread the Rule 45A's requirement according to decisions the court and the supreme court subsequently handed down. InNeelley v. State, 642 So.2d 494, 496 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) the court observed that "it is well settled that the plain error rule applies only on direct appeal and not in collateral review proceedings." Similarly, in Ex parte Dobyne, 805 So.2d 763, 766 (Ala.2001), the court emphasized that Rule 45A's plain error rule does not apply in collateral proceedings.
A similar plain error rule operates with respect to petitions for certiorari filed in the Alabama Supreme Court in death penalty cases, pursuant to Rule 39(a)(2) of the Alabama Rules of Appellate ProcedureSee Ex parte Dobyne, 805 So.2d 763, 766 (Ala.2001).
We note that it is well settled in Alabama that there is no Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel in post-conviction proceedings, which are civil in natureMayes v. State, 563 So.2d 38, 38 (Ala.1993) ("This [Sixth Amendment] guarantee to the assistance of counsel does not extend to collateral or post-conviction proceedings because they are civil in nature." (citation omitted)).
After the court of criminal appeals affirmed the circuit court's Rule 20 disposition, Short petitioned the court for rehearing. The court summarily denied the petition. Short then unsuccessfully sought certiorari review in the Alabama Supreme Court and in the United States Supreme Court. In none of these instances did he take issue with the court of criminal appeals's statements that his performance at Peoples's trial and on direct appeal fully satisfied the Sixth Amendment requirement articulated inStrickland v. Washington.
Although Peoples draws our attention the court of appeals passages we have set out in the text, he cites nothing in the record to substantiate his position that he explicitly challenged the constitutionality of Short's performance. Instead, he merely argues that his colloquy with the court during his Rule 20 petition did not amount to a "waiver" of this argument. Peoples also has not pointed us to a case in which the court of criminal appeals raised and decided an ineffective assistance claim that the petitioner never presented. Since it is extremely rare for a court to do so, however, his failure here is not surprising
The district court apparently overlooked our decisions inMesser v. Florida and Campbell v. Wainwright, which are cited in the immediately preceding portion of the text, as well as Davis v. Singletary, 119 F.3d 1471 (11th Cir.1997). In Davis, we confronted the same issue the district court faced here: whether a state appellate court's sua sponte merits consideration of an constitutional issue the petitioner "did not raise ... at trial or on appeal," and therefore defaulted, precluded the district court from honoring the procedural default and considering the issue/claim on the merits. Id. at 1479. The issue the Florida Supreme Court raised sua sponte in Davis was whether "there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the five aggravating circumstances the trial court had found" in sentencing Davis to death. Id. As the court of criminal appeals did in deciding whether Short had denied Peoples his right to the effective assistance of counsel, the Florida Supreme Court ignored Davis's procedural default and decided the sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue on the merits. Id. The district court, however, in addressing that issue (then presented as a constitutional claim), agreed with the State that Davis had procedurally defaulted the claim notwithstanding that the Florida Supreme Court had passed on the claim's merits. On appeal, we held that the district court erred in treating the claim as defaulted with this statement: "It is settled that once the state courts have ignored any procedural bar and rejected a claim on the merits — not in the alternative but as the only basis of decision — that claim is not barred from federal habeas review." Id. In the situation here, the court of criminal appeals ignored Alabama's procedural bar and decided on the merits whether Short's performance fell short of that required by Strickland.
We think it important at this juncture to reiterate a well-established principle that a state appellate court's routine plain error review of a conviction or sentencedoes not, standing alone, excuse a procedural default. See Julius v. Johnson, 840 F.2d 1533, 1546 (11th Cir.1988); cf. Paprocki v. Foltz, 869 F.2d 281, 284 (6th Cir.1989). When, however, as is the situation here, the appellate court, in conducting plain error review, identifies a specific constitutional claim, ignores the fact that the claim has been defaulted, and decides the claim on the merits, we treat the claim on habeas review as if the petitioner had not defaulted the claim and pass on its merits.
95. [Short] did not adequately investigate or prepare for [Peoples's] capital trial
[Short] failed to provide effective assistance on appeal, and during post-trial motion and post-conviction proceedings, by failing adequately to challenge constitutional violations practiced upon his client during the trial and by failing to raise such issues on appeal
[Short] failed to obtain discoverable material, including all forensic reports, and failed to retain and utilize the services of forensic experts
[Short] failed to raise the fact that his client was consuming medications throughout the course of the trial proceedings
[Short] ineffectively argued suppression motions relating to issues of voluntariness,Miranda warnings, attorney-client privilege, and the ineffective assistance of prior counsel.
[Short] failed to make timely objections on evidentiary grounds, upon the trial court's denial of his suppression and dismissal motions, for the duration of the trial [his] objections were framed simply in an effort to preserve the record of his suppression and dismissal motions
[Short] was inattentive in forgetting about his prior receipt of discovery, failing to obtain certain discovery, abruptly ending certain cross-examinations, and forgetting prior rulings of the trial court
[Short] failed to object to the overwhelmingly excessive and inflammatory demonstrative exhibits on the obvious grounds that the evidence was designed to excite and impassion the jury
[Short] failed to object to the production before the jury of the cut skull of one victim and the prosecutor's argument that the skull piece demonstrated a "patterned injury."
[Short] anticipated the trial court's repeated rulings denying his objections by stating before the jury "that's I assume denied."
[Short] never argued that the probative value of any piece of evidence was outweighed by its unfair prejudice
[Short's] summation expressly acknowledged that his own client was guilty, by arguing that he was an accomplice to the co-defendant which in combination with the trial court's forthcoming accomplice charge amounted to his confession of guilt
[Short's] summation expressly conceded that his own client was deserving of capital punishment, by commenting that upon the jury's determination of guilt there would be no reasonable "options" in the next phase of trial except the death penalty itself
[Short] inexplicably failed to argue in summation that absolutely no evidence of Paul Franklin's cause of death had been introduced
[Short] in summation complimented the state's witnesses
[Short] introduced the testimony of a defense witness at the penalty phase who stated that John Peoples should be given the death penalty
[Short] failed to introduce any evidence at the penalty phase of ... Peoples's good and decent family life, his children, and his wife, nor did [he] offer evidence of substantial available mitigation circumstances concerning Peoples's life, character, and significant and numerous lifetime travails which he had always successfully overcome
[Short] did not render reasonably effective assistance of counsel, in violation of [Peoples's] rights under the ... Constitution
[Peoples] was represented at trial, during post-trial motion proceedings, on appeal, and during State post-conviction proceedings and appeals by [Short], a private practitioner from Bessemer, Alabama. [Short], formerly a district attorney in Alabama, was retained by [Peoples's] parents throughout the course of his representation
The two instances that the district court held were eligible for federal habeas review are discussed in Part IV.F,infra.
The district court noted that the Alabama courts would not hear the new claims because of both the limitations period and the bar against successive petitionsSee Ala. R.Crim. P. 32.2 (the successor of Temporary Rule 20.2). In Siebert v. Campbell, 334 F.3d 1018, 1027 (11th Cir.2003), however, this court observed that "[prior to 2000] Alabama law made clear ... that noncompliance with the Rule 32 time bar did not divest courts of discretion to entertain late petitions should they do so." As a result, we held that Rule 32's limitation period time did not qualify as a "firmly established and regularly followed" procedural default rule that precluded substantive relief of federal claims under AEDPA's tolling provision. Id. at 1025. Because Peoples petitioned the district court before 2000, Siebert applies, and the district accordingly erred in concluding that Rule 32.2's limitation period foreclosed federal review of Peoples's claim. However, Peoples was not prejudiced by this error because Rule 32.2(b)'s bar against successive petitions does preclude federal review. See Ex parte Singleton, 548 So.2d 167, 170 (Ala.1989) ("Temporary Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.2(b) ... provides that `[a] second or successive petition on different grounds shall be denied unless the petitioner shows both that good cause exists why the new ground or grounds were not known or could not have been ascertained through reasonable diligence when the first petition was heard, and that failure to entertain the petition will result in a miscarriage of justice.'"). Because the bar against successive petitions was "firmly established and regularly followed" by Alabama courts, the district court correctly observed that Peoples would not be permitted to raise his new claim in a successive Rule 20 petition since the facts underlying his claim were ascertainable at the time his first petition was heard. See Ala. R.Crim. P. 32.2(b); Ex parte Singleton, 548 So.2d at 170 ("While [Rule 32.2(b)'s precursor] Rule 20.2(b) did not go into effect until April 1, 1987, that rule is based upon case law which was in existence at the time of [petitioner's] 1986 coram nobis petition.") (citing McLeod v. State, 415 So.2d 1232, 1233 (Ala.Crim.App.1982)).
Peoples initially contended that Short afforded him ineffective assistance by failing to bring these instances of Robbins's ineffectiveness to the attention of the Rule 20 court, and that Short's ineffectiveness established "cause" for his failure to present them. However, as his attorney conceded during oral argument, the contention is without merit; the Sixth Amendment does not apply in post-conviction collateral proceedingsRoss v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 94 S.Ct. 2437, 41 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974); Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987); Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1, 109 S.Ct. 2765, 106 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989).
The circuit court's decision denying Peoples's Rule 20 claim that Robbins provided ineffective assistance of counsel was based on evidence adduced at three hearings: the October 4 hearing on Peoples's motion to dismiss the indictment, the December 1-2 mid-trial hearing on Peoples's motion to suppress evidence (and his renewed motion to dismiss the indictment), and the December 13, 1988 hearing held on Peoples's Rule 20 petition
Moreover, we presume that the Alabama courts'"determination of a factual issue ... is correct." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)
Peoples's brief to the Rule 20 circuit court does not expressly link hisMiranda challenge to the admissibility of the July 19 confession with Robbins's allegedly deficient performance, but it is possible the connection was made explicit at oral argument. Although the record is unclear on this point, it is evident from the circuit court's Memorandum Opinion denying Peoples's Rule 20 petition that the court treated the challenge as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Peoples, 565 So.2d at 1181-83.
In support of his Rule 20 claim challenging the admissibility of his confession on July 19, Peoples citedEdwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981) along with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). In our view, Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977), is the closest case in point. There, the police interrogated the defendant after his attorney instructed the police not to do so in his absence. The Court held that the defendant was entitled to a new trial because the police had deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel. Id. at 406, 97 S.Ct. at 1243. In reaching that holding, the Court considered and rejected the State's argument that the defendant waived that constitutional right before the police began to question him. Id. at 404-06, 97 S.Ct. at 1242-43.
Many circuit courts have discussed the "closely related" or "inextricably intertwined" exception with approvalSee, e.g., United States v. Melgar, 139 F.3d 1005, 1013 (4th Cir.1998); United States v. Arnold, 106 F.3d 37, 40-41 (3d Cir.1997); United States v. Doherty, 126 F.3d 769, 776 (6th Cir.1997); United States v. Carpenter, 963 F.2d 736, 740 (5th Cir.1992). These cases, however, have been overruled by Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162, 121 S.Ct. 1335, 149 L.Ed.2d 321 (2001), a case we discuss in the subsequent text.