Opinion ID: 2504293
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Remaining Cross-Appeal Claims

Text: Morrow claims that the compositions of his grand and traverse juries were unconstitutional and violated OCGA § 15-12-40 because Hispanic persons were under-represented on the lists from which those juries were drawn. The habeas court correctly concluded that it was not free to reexamine this claim on habeas corpus, because the claim was decided adversely to Morrow on direct appeal. See Hall v. Lance, 286 Ga. 365, 376(III), 687 S.E.2d 809 (2010) (holding that matters decided on direct appeal may not be re-examined by the habeas courts); Morrow, 272 Ga. at 692-695(1), 532 S.E.2d 78 (addressing Morrow's jury composition claim on direct appeal). Morrow argues that the habeas court should have re-opened this claim, arguing that the release of the 2000 Census has revealed new facts which should now be considered. See Lance, 286 Ga. at 376, 687 S.E.2d 809(III) (noting that habeas courts should not reconsider issues previously addressed by this Court where there has been no change in the law or the facts since this Court's decision); Bruce v. Smith 274 Ga. 432, 434(2), 553 S.E.2d 808 (2001) (noting that, [w]ithout a change in the facts or the law, a habeas court will not review an issue decided on direct appeal). But see Head v. Hill, 277 Ga. 255, 257(II)(A)(1), 587 S.E.2d 613 (2003) (noting that a claim based on new law may only serve as the basis for habeas corpus relief if the new law is of the type that is given retroactive effect). This Court allows claims to be revisited on habeas corpus where new facts have developed since the time of the direct appeal not because the Court intends to allow prisoners to have a second chance to prove their claims but, instead, because a claim that is based on facts that did not actually exist at the time of direct appeal is essentially a different claim. We reject Morrow's argument that his jury composition claim should be re-opened, because we find that he has pointed merely to a new means by which the relevant facts might be proven rather than to any new underlying facts. His present claim does not present a new claim. Furthermore, even if this claim were not barred by res judicata, it would lack merit in light of our holding that jury commissioners properly rely on the most-recent Decennial Census that is available at the time jury lists are constructed. See Williams v. State, 287 Ga. 735, 699 S.E.2d 25 (2010).
This Court held on direct appeal that the death penalty was not disproportionate punishment in Morrow's case. See Morrow, 272 Ga. at 703(17), 532 S.E.2d 78. However, Morrow argues that this Court should re-examine that question, particularly in light of the new evidence that he has presented in the habeas court. As this Court has done in the past, we pretermit whether a re-examination of the proportionality of a death sentence by this Court on habeas corpus might ever be appropriate. Instead, we simply conclude that no cause to consider doing so exists in this case, a case that involves two especially-brutal murders and clear evidence of escalating prior violence toward the main target of Morrow's discontent, Ms. Young. See Schofield v. Meders, 280 Ga. 865, 871(8), 632 S.E.2d 369 (2006) (stating that the Court perceive[d] no reason to re-examine the issue [of proportionality]); Fleming v. Zant, 259 Ga. 687, 688-689(2), 386 S.E.2d 339 (1989) (refusing to reach the issue of whether there may be some circumstances under which a second proportionality review would be appropriate).
As was noted above in the discussion of the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, Morrow argues that the form of the jury's sentencing verdict in his trial was improper in that it did not clearly indicate that the jury had unanimously recommended a death sentence for either of the two individual murders but, instead, simply found multiple statutory aggravating circumstances regarding each of the individual murders and recommended one unified death sentence. The habeas court erred by finding this claim to be barred as previously litigated, because, although the underlying facts of the issue were briefly noted by this Court sua sponte in a footnote outlining the procedural history of the case, the issue was not raised as a distinct claim in Morrow's appeal. See Morrow, 272 Ga. at 692 n. 1, 532 S.E.2d 78 (noting the form of the jury's sentencing verdict). However, the habeas court correctly found in the alternative that this claim was barred by procedural default. See Hall v. Brannan, 284 Ga. 716, 725-726(III), 670 S.E.2d 87 (2008). The bar to procedurally-defaulted claims can be overcome by satisfying the cause and prejudice test, and the showing of cause under that test can be made by demonstrating that counsel rendered ineffective assistance under constitutional standards. See id. However, Morrow's counsel cannot be regarded as having rendered deficient performance on appeal, because they could not have successfully raised a claim about the jury's sentencing verdict on direct appeal in light of the fact that the issue had not been preserved by objection at trial. Likewise, as is discussed above, Morrow cannot show the ineffective assistance of his counsel at trial, because he has failed to show that an objection at trial would have in reasonable probability led to anything other than the imposition of two death sentences, one for each of the murders. Thus, Morrow's attempt to rely upon ineffective assistance of counsel to satisfy the cause and prejudice test fails, and this claim remains barred by procedural default.
In a footnote, Morrow has purported to incorporate all remaining issues that he raised in the habeas court. These unspecified, unsupported claims are deemed abandoned. See Supreme Court Rule 22; Hall v. Terrell, 285 Ga. 448, 457(III), 679 S.E.2d 17 (2009). Judgment reversed in Case No. S11A0937. Judgment affirmed in Case No. S11X0938.