Opinion ID: 78555
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The State and Federal Postconviction Proceedings

Text: Cunningham appealed his conviction to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, making five arguments: (1) the jury improperly disregarded evidence that he was suffering from a severe mental disease or defect at the time of the offense; (2) the trial court erred by refusing to suppress Brown's show-up identification; (3) the court erred by failing to suppress his wallet and its contents; (4) the court erred by not empaneling separate juries to try the two phases of his bifurcated trial; and (5) the court erred by not permitting his expert to be present in the courtroom during the suppression hearing. (R14; Appellant's Brief in Ala.Crim.App. at i-ii). The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals rejected each of Cunningham's arguments and affirmed his conviction. See Cunningham v. State, 727 So.2d 178, 1997 WL 1073789 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). ( See R14; Memorandum Opinion of Ala.Crim.App.). The Alabama Supreme Court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari. See Ex parte Cunningham, 733 So.2d 493 (Ala.1998). On March 26, 1999, Cunningham filed his first petition for habeas corpus in federal court, asserting that the state court erred by denying his motion to suppress Brown's show-up identification. (R16:Tab 1:Petition at 7). He later filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss that petition without prejudice, which the district court granted on August 27, 1999. See Cunningham v. Holt, No. 99-0325-RV-C (S.D.Ala. Aug. 27, 1999). ( Id.: Judgment at 1). On December 20, 1999, Cunningham filed a petition in state court under Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, collaterally attacking his conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel. (R15: Tab 4: at 1-10). The state court dismissed that petition because [t]he issues raised by the defendant were raised or could have been raised on appeal pursuant to Rule 32.2 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure and the petition discloses no newly discovered material or fact which would require that the conviction be vacated. See Cunningham v. State, No. CC-95-439 (Escambia County Cir. Ct. Feb. 4, 2000). ( Id. at Tab 4: Feb.2000 Cir. Ct. Order). It does not appear that Cunningham appealed the dismissal of that petition. Cunningham filed a second federal habeas petition on May 24, 2000. (R16: Tab 2: R & R at 14). He claimed both that the use of the show-up identification procedure was so prejudicial that it deprived him of a fair trial and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. (R16: Tab 2: Petition at 7-8). On January 2, 2001, while that second habeas petition was still pending, Cunningham filed a third one; it challenged the show-up identification of him by Brown. ( Id.: Tab 4:Petition at 7). The district court consolidated the May 2000 and January 2001 petitions. See Cunningham v. Holt, Nos. CA 00-0471-BH-C & CA 01-0004-BH-C (S.D.Ala. Aug. 6, 2001). ( Id.: R & R at 1-2). The court determined that it was procedurally barred from reaching the merits of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim because Cunningham had raised the same issue in his Rule 32 petition, but he had failed to appeal the state trial court's dismissal of that petition. ( Id. at 11 & n. 3). The court also determined that the actual innocence exception to the procedural default doctrine did not apply despite Cunningham's contention that the district court should have ordered DNA testing on certain identified evidence. [6] ( Id. at 14 n. 5). According to the district court, all Cunningham had done was make the broad conclusory argument that such testing may exculpate him, and that was insufficient because exculpatory evidence did not exist at the time. ( Id. ) The district court further found that [s]uch DNA testing... is neither warranted nor would it be likely to exculpate [Cunningham] since there was never any direct DNA evidence used in prosecuting him at trial. ( Id. ) The district court also rejected Cunningham's claim relating to Brown's identification because it was adjudicated on the merits in state court and Cunningham could not satisfy either of the 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) exceptions. [7] ( Id. at 16-17). Accordingly, both the May 2000 and January 2001 petitions were denied by the district court. ( Id.: Aug.2001 Order at 2). Cunningham's request for a certificate of appealability was later denied by both the district court and this Court. ( Id.: Sept. 2001 Dist. Ct. Order at 2 & 11th Cir. Order). On October 23, 2003, Cunningham filed a second Rule 32 petition in state court, claiming that he was actually innocent. (R15:Tab 4:2003 Rule 32 Petition). Although Cunningham contended in the petition that if all the facts of the case had been known to the jury there [was] a strong presumption that the jury would not have convicted [him] of the crime, he never specified what additional facts he was referring to and he never mentioned or requested DNA testing. ( Id. at 14). That petition was also dismissed because the issues Cunningham raised were or could have been raised on direct appeal and his petition failed to disclose any newly discovered facts requiring that his conviction be vacated. See Cunningham v. State, No. CC 95-439.60 (Escambia County Cir. Ct., Apr. 29, 2004). ( Id.: Apr.2004 Circuit Ct. Order). Cunningham's appeal of that decision was dismissed for failure to file a brief. ( Id.: Aug.2004 Ala.Crim. App. Order). Cunningham filed his fifth and final federal habeas petition on September 20, 2004, alleging his actual innocence. (R16:Tab 5: Petition Addendum). Again, Cunningham summarily contended that the evidence and facts prove[d] that he [was] not guilty of the crime, but he neither mentioned any biological evidence supporting his position nor requested DNA testing. ( Id. ) The district court construed the petition as being successive and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. See Cunningham v. Ferrell, No. 04-0607-WS-C, 2005 WL 1138378 (S.D.Ala. May 6, 2005). ( Id.: R & R).