ineffective assistance claim in Alabama

2011But, the issue is not what is possible or ‘what is prudent or appropriate, but only what is constitutionally compelled.’ Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776 , 107 S.Ct. 3114, 3126 , 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987).’ ” Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1313 (11th Cir.2000) (footnote omitted). “ ‘When the ineffective assistance claim relates to the sentencing phase of the trial, the standard is whether there is “a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer — including an appellate court, to the extent it independently reweighs the evidence — would have concluded that the balance of agg

2010"When reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty *1260 phase of a capital trial we apply the following legal standards. " 'When the ineffective assistance claim relates to the sentencing phase of the trial, the standard is whether there is "a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer-including an appellate court, to the extent it independently reweighs the evidence-would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death." Strickland [v. Washington] , 466 U.S. [668,] at 695, 104 S.Ct. [2052,] at 20

2026Indeed, counsel 39 CR-2023-0654 could not be constitutionally ineffective for failing to point out inaccuracies within Creque's highly detailed confession (in an attempt to show he was "under the influence") when doing so would have only emphasized the multiple "stories" Creque had fabricated and that he had injured himself and gone to the hospital in an attempt to escape punishment for his crimes. " 'An ineffective-assistance claim does not arise from the failure to present … evidence where that evidence presents a double-edged sword.' " Washington v. State, 95 So. 3d 26, 53 (Ala. Crim.

2026Moreover, Belcher's expulsion would have been a double-edged sword. " 'An ineffective- assistance claim does not arise from the failure to present mitigation evidence where that evidence presents a double-edged sword.' " Washington v. State, 95 So. 3d 26, 53 (Ala. Crim.

2026(TC. 827.) See, e.g., Washington, 95 So. 3d at 53 (" 'An ineffective assistance claim does not arise from the failure to present mitigation evidence where that evidence presents a double-edged sword.' " (Quoting Reed v. State, 875 So. 2d 415, 437 (Fla. 2004))), and Boyd v. State, 306 So. 3d 907, 926 (Ala. Crim.

2026(TC. 827.) See, e.g., Washington, 95 So. 3d at 53 (" 'An ineffective assistance claim does not arise from the failure to present mitigation evidence where that evidence presents a double-edged sword.' " (Quoting Reed v. State, 875 So. 2d 415, 437 (Fla. 2004))), and Boyd v. State, 306 So. 3d 907 , 926 (Ala. Crim.

2025App. 2015) (" 'The reasonableness of counsel's actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant's own statements or actions.' " (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691 ).) Moreover, Belcher's expulsion would have been a double-edged sword. " 'An ineffective- assistance claim does not arise from the failure to present mitigation evidence where that evidence presents a double-edged sword.' " Washington v. State, 95 So. 3d 26, 53 (Ala. Crim.

2016See Strickland , 466 U.S. at 697 ("[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim ... to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.").

2023In regard to voir dire examination, this Court has stated: " 'Generally, "[a]n attorney's actions during voir dire are considered to be matters of trial strategy," which "cannot be the basis" of an ineffective assistance claim "unless counsel's decision is ... so ill chosen that it permeates the entire trial with obvious unfairness." ' "Neill v. Gibson, 263 F.3d 1184, 1193 (10th Cir.2001) (quoting Nguyen v. Reynolds, 131 F.3d 1340, 1349 (10th Cir. 1997)). 'Counsel, like the trial court, is granted "particular deference" when conducting voir dire.' Keith v. Mitchell, 455 F.3d 662, 676 (6th Cir.

2013P. “Moreover, “ ‘Generally, “[a]n attorney’s actions during voir dire are considered to be matters of trial strategy,” which “cannot be the basis” of an ineffective assistance claim “unless counsel’s decision is ... so ill chosen that it permeates the entire trial with obvious unfairness.” ’ “Neill v. Gibson, 263 F.3d 1184, 1193 (10th Cir.2001) (quoting Nguyen v. Reynolds, 131 F.3d 1340 , 1349 (10th Cir. 1997)). ‘Counsel, like the trial court, is granted “particular deference” when conducting voir dire.’ Keith v. Mitchell, 455 F.3d 662, 676 (6th Cir.2006).” Washington, 95 So.3d at 64 .

2023In regard to voir dire examination, this Court has stated: " 'Generally, "[a]n attorney's actions during voir dire are considered to be matters of trial strategy," which "cannot be the basis" of an ineffective assistance claim "unless counsel's decision is ... so ill chosen that it permeates the entire trial with obvious unfairness." ' "Neill v. Gibson, 263 F.3d 1184, 1193 (10th Cir.2001) (quoting Nguyen v. Reynolds, 131 F.3d 1340, 1349 (10th Cir. 1997)). 'Counsel, like the trial court, is granted "particular deference" when conducting voir dire.' Keith v. Mitchell, 455 F.3d 662, 676 (6th Cir.

2013P. “Moreover, “ ‘Generally, “[a]n attorney’s actions during voir dire are considered to be matters of trial strategy,” which “cannot be the basis” of an ineffective assistance claim “unless counsel’s decision is ... so ill chosen that it permeates the entire trial with obvious unfairness.” ’ “Neill v. Gibson, 263 F.3d 1184, 1193 (10th Cir.2001) (quoting Nguyen v. Reynolds, 131 F.3d 1340 , 1349 (10th Cir. 1997)). ‘Counsel, like the trial court, is granted “particular deference” when conducting voir dire.’ Keith v. Mitchell, 455 F.3d 662, 676 (6th Cir.2006).” Washington, 95 So.3d at 64 .

2016See, e.g., Walker v. State, 194 So.3d 253 (Ala.Crim.App.2015) (“ ‘An attorney’s decision whether to retain witnesses, including expert witnesses, is a matter of trial strategy.’ People v. Payne, 285 Mich.App. 181, 190 , 774 N.W.2d 714, 722 (2009). ‘[I]n general, the “decision not to hire experts falls within the realm of trial strategy.”’ State v. Denz, 232 Ariz. 441, 445 , 306 P.3d 98, 102 (2013), quoting Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 228 (5th Cir.1993).”); Johnson v. State, [Ms. CR-05-1805, September 28, 2007] — So.3d -, -(Ala.Crim.App.2007) (“ ‘[I]n the context of an ineffective assistanc

2004Although that court conducted a preserved error review with respect to the ineffective-assistance claim Thomas raised before that court, it specifically noted that “neither the Court of Criminal Appeals nor this Court even mentioned the [underlying substantive] issue ... in the respective opinions at that stage.” Ex parte Thomas, 766 So.2d at 979.

2006On appeal from the denial of the petition, we held, in part: “[Wjhen this court and/or the Alabama Supreme Court has specifically addressed and rejected a substantive claim on direct appeal, whether reviewing for plain or preserved error, a petitioner in a Rule 32 proceeding who raises an ineffective-assistance claim based on that same substantive claim cannot establish prejudice under Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ].” Taylor v. State, 10 So.3d 1037, 1047 (Ala.Crim.App.2004) (footnote omitted).

2005The majority stated: “[Wjhen this court and/or the Alabama Supreme Court has specifically addressed and rejected a substantive claim on direct appeal, whether reviewing for plain or preserved error, a petitioner in a Rule 32 proceeding who raises an ineffective-assistance claim based on that same substantive claim cannot establish prejudice under Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) ].” Taylor v. State, 10 So.3d at 1047 .

2024However, although defense counsel's inexperience may be a factor to consider, " '[t]he dispositive facts upon which an ineffective assistance claim succeeds or fails centers on counsel's performance, not the level of his or her experience.' " Gaddy v. State, 952 So. 2d 1149, 1156 (Ala. Crim.

2009Moreover, when evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in relation to the penalty phase of a capital-murder trial, we have stated: “ “When the ineffective assistance claim relates to the sentencing phase of the trial, the standard is whether there is “a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer — including an appellate court, to the extent it independently reweighs the evidence — would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death.” Strickland [v. Washington], 466 U.S. [668,] at 695, 104 S.Ct. [2052,] at 206

2006Rather, under Strickland's two-part test, defendant must establish specific errors by counsel and resultant prejudice." Aragon v. State , 114 Idaho 758 , 761 , 760 P.2d 1174 , 1177 (1988)("The dispositive facts upon which an ineffective assistance claim succeeds or fails centers on counsel's performance, not the level of his or her experience.").

2006Rather, under Strickland's two-part test, defendant must establish specific errors by counsel and resultant prejudice." Aragon v. State , 114 Idaho 758 , 761 , 760 P.2d 1174 , 1177 (1988)("The dispositive facts upon which an ineffective assistance claim succeeds or fails centers on counsel's performance, not the level of his or her experience.").

2023In regard to voir dire examination, this Court has stated: " 'Generally, "[a]n attorney's actions during voir dire are considered to be matters of trial strategy," which "cannot be the basis" of an ineffective assistance claim "unless counsel's decision is ... so ill chosen that it permeates the entire trial with obvious unfairness." ' "Neill v. Gibson, 263 F.3d 1184, 1193 (10th Cir.2001) (quoting Nguyen v. Reynolds, 131 F.3d 1340, 1349 (10th Cir. 1997)). 'Counsel, like the trial court, is granted "particular deference" when conducting voir dire.' Keith v. Mitchell, 455 F.3d 662, 676 (6th Cir.

2013P. “Moreover, “ ‘Generally, “[a]n attorney’s actions during voir dire are considered to be matters of trial strategy,” which “cannot be the basis” of an ineffective assistance claim “unless counsel’s decision is ... so ill chosen that it permeates the entire trial with obvious unfairness.” ’ “Neill v. Gibson, 263 F.3d 1184, 1193 (10th Cir.2001) (quoting Nguyen v. Reynolds, 131 F.3d 1340 , 1349 (10th Cir. 1997)). ‘Counsel, like the trial court, is granted “particular deference” when conducting voir dire.’ Keith v. Mitchell, 455 F.3d 662, 676 (6th Cir.2006).” Washington, 95 So.3d at 64 .

2011But, the issue is not what is possible or ‘what is prudent or appropriate, but only what is constitutionally compelled.’ Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776 , 107 S.Ct. 3114, 3126 , 97 L.Ed.2d 638 (1987).’ ” Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1313 (11th Cir.2000) (footnote omitted). “ ‘When the ineffective assistance claim relates to the sentencing phase of the trial, the standard is whether there is “a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer — including an appellate court, to the extent it independently reweighs the evidence — would have concluded that the balance of agg

2007In any ineffectiveness particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel's judgments." 466 U.S. at 690 -91 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . "`When the ineffective assistance claim relates to the sentencing phase of the trial, the standard is whether there is "a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer — including an appellate court, to the extent it independently reweighs the evidence — would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warr

2011“Indeed, ‘[e]ounsel has no absolute duty to present mitigating character evidence at all, and trial counsel’s failure to present mitigating evidence is not per se ineffective assistance of counsel.’ ” Bolender, 16 F.3d at 1557 (citations omitted).’ “Marek v. Singletary, 62 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir.1995).

2006"When the ineffective assistance claim relates to the sentencing phase of the trial, the standard is whether there is `a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer — including an appellate court, to the extent it independently reweighs the evidence — would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death.' Strickland [v. Washington ], 466 U.S. [668 ,] at 695, 104 S.Ct. [2052 ,] at 2069 [(1984)]." Stafford v. Saffle , 34 F.3d 1557 , 1564 (10th Cir.1994). "`A defense attorney is not required to investigate all leads, however, an

2016Appellate counsel is presumed to exercise sound strategy in the selection of issues most likely to afford relief on appeal.”), aff'd, 766 So.2d 975 (Ala.2000), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte Taylor, 10 So.3d 1075 (Ala.2005).

2004See Ex parte Thomas, [ 766 So.2d 975 (Ala.2000) ]." The majority appears to have created a dual system for evaluating the plain error review conducted by this Court in all death penalty cases and that is permitted in the Alabama Supreme Court in all death-penalty cases. [6] First, the majority holds that, if this Court or the Alabama Supreme Court addressed and rejected a substantive issue on direct appeal and found that no plain error occurred, then, if a petitioner in Rule 32 proceedings raises an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim arising out of that substantive issue, the previous fin

2016Decisions ' "[w]hether to engage in cross examination, and if so to what extent and in what matter, are ... strategic in nature' and generally will not support an ineffective assistance claim.' Dunham v. Travis , 313 F.3d 724 , 732 (2nd Cir.2002)." 44 So.3d at 1136 .

2009Decisions “ ‘[w]hether to engage in cross examination, and if so to what extent and in what matter, are ... strategic in nature’ and generally will not support an ineffective assistance claim.” Dunham v. Travis, 313 F.3d 724, 732 (2nd Cir.2002).

2014Additionally, this Gburt has held: “ ‘[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim to approach the inquiry in the same order or even to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one. ‘ In particular, a court need not determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies.’ ” Smith v. State, 122 So.3d 224, 235 (Ala.Crim.App.2011), quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 .

2013As this Court recognized in Smith v. State, 122 So.3d 224 (Ala.Crim.App.2011): " ‘[TJhere is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim to approach the inquiry in the same order or even to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.

2016See, e.g., Walker v. State, 194 So.3d 253 (Ala.Crim.App.2015) (“ ‘An attorney’s decision whether to retain witnesses, including expert witnesses, is a matter of trial strategy.’ People v. Payne, 285 Mich.App. 181, 190 , 774 N.W.2d 714, 722 (2009). ‘[I]n general, the “decision not to hire experts falls within the realm of trial strategy.”’ State v. Denz, 232 Ariz. 441, 445 , 306 P.3d 98, 102 (2013), quoting Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 228 (5th Cir.1993).”); Johnson v. State, [Ms. CR-05-1805, September 28, 2007] — So.3d -, -(Ala.Crim.App.2007) (“ ‘[I]n the context of an ineffective assistanc

2016See, e.g., Walker v. State, 194 So.3d 253 (Ala.Crim.App.2015) (“ ‘An attorney’s decision whether to retain witnesses, including expert witnesses, is a matter of trial strategy.’ People v. Payne, 285 Mich.App. 181, 190 , 774 N.W.2d 714, 722 (2009). ‘[I]n general, the “decision not to hire experts falls within the realm of trial strategy.”’ State v. Denz, 232 Ariz. 441, 445 , 306 P.3d 98, 102 (2013), quoting Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 228 (5th Cir.1993).”); Johnson v. State, [Ms. CR-05-1805, September 28, 2007] — So.3d -, -(Ala.Crim.App.2007) (“ ‘[I]n the context of an ineffective assistanc

2016See, e.g., Walker v. State, 194 So.3d 253 (Ala.Crim.App.2015) (“ ‘An attorney’s decision whether to retain witnesses, including expert witnesses, is a matter of trial strategy.’ People v. Payne, 285 Mich.App. 181, 190 , 774 N.W.2d 714, 722 (2009). ‘[I]n general, the “decision not to hire experts falls within the realm of trial strategy.”’ State v. Denz, 232 Ariz. 441, 445 , 306 P.3d 98, 102 (2013), quoting Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 228 (5th Cir.1993).”); Johnson v. State, [Ms. CR-05-1805, September 28, 2007] — So.3d -, -(Ala.Crim.App.2007) (“ ‘[I]n the context of an ineffective assistanc

2016See, e.g., Walker v. State, 194 So.3d 253 (Ala.Crim.App.2015) (“ ‘An attorney’s decision whether to retain witnesses, including expert witnesses, is a matter of trial strategy.’ People v. Payne, 285 Mich.App. 181, 190 , 774 N.W.2d 714, 722 (2009). ‘[I]n general, the “decision not to hire experts falls within the realm of trial strategy.”’ State v. Denz, 232 Ariz. 441, 445 , 306 P.3d 98, 102 (2013), quoting Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 228 (5th Cir.1993).”); Johnson v. State, [Ms. CR-05-1805, September 28, 2007] — So.3d -, -(Ala.Crim.App.2007) (“ ‘[I]n the context of an ineffective assistanc

2016See, e.g., Walker v. State, 194 So.3d 253 (Ala.Crim.App.2015) (“ ‘An attorney’s decision whether to retain witnesses, including expert witnesses, is a matter of trial strategy.’ People v. Payne, 285 Mich.App. 181, 190 , 774 N.W.2d 714, 722 (2009). ‘[I]n general, the “decision not to hire experts falls within the realm of trial strategy.”’ State v. Denz, 232 Ariz. 441, 445 , 306 P.3d 98, 102 (2013), quoting Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 228 (5th Cir.1993).”); Johnson v. State, [Ms. CR-05-1805, September 28, 2007] — So.3d -, -(Ala.Crim.App.2007) (“ ‘[I]n the context of an ineffective assistanc

2016See, e.g., Walker v. State, 194 So.3d 253 (Ala.Crim.App.2015) (“ ‘An attorney’s decision whether to retain witnesses, including expert witnesses, is a matter of trial strategy.’ People v. Payne, 285 Mich.App. 181, 190 , 774 N.W.2d 714, 722 (2009). ‘[I]n general, the “decision not to hire experts falls within the realm of trial strategy.”’ State v. Denz, 232 Ariz. 441, 445 , 306 P.3d 98, 102 (2013), quoting Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 228 (5th Cir.1993).”); Johnson v. State, [Ms. CR-05-1805, September 28, 2007] — So.3d -, -(Ala.Crim.App.2007) (“ ‘[I]n the context of an ineffective assistanc

2016See, e.g., Walker v. State, 194 So.3d 253 (Ala.Crim.App.2015) (“ ‘An attorney’s decision whether to retain witnesses, including expert witnesses, is a matter of trial strategy.’ People v. Payne, 285 Mich.App. 181, 190 , 774 N.W.2d 714, 722 (2009). ‘[I]n general, the “decision not to hire experts falls within the realm of trial strategy.”’ State v. Denz, 232 Ariz. 441, 445 , 306 P.3d 98, 102 (2013), quoting Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 228 (5th Cir.1993).”); Johnson v. State, [Ms. CR-05-1805, September 28, 2007] — So.3d -, -(Ala.Crim.App.2007) (“ ‘[I]n the context of an ineffective assistanc

2016See, e.g., Walker v. State, 194 So.3d 253 (Ala.Crim.App.2015) (“ ‘An attorney’s decision whether to retain witnesses, including expert witnesses, is a matter of trial strategy.’ People v. Payne, 285 Mich.App. 181, 190 , 774 N.W.2d 714, 722 (2009). ‘[I]n general, the “decision not to hire experts falls within the realm of trial strategy.”’ State v. Denz, 232 Ariz. 441, 445 , 306 P.3d 98, 102 (2013), quoting Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 228 (5th Cir.1993).”); Johnson v. State, [Ms. CR-05-1805, September 28, 2007] — So.3d -, -(Ala.Crim.App.2007) (“ ‘[I]n the context of an ineffective assistanc

2016See, e.g., Walker v. State, 194 So.3d 253 (Ala.Crim.App.2015) (“ ‘An attorney’s decision whether to retain witnesses, including expert witnesses, is a matter of trial strategy.’ People v. Payne, 285 Mich.App. 181, 190 , 774 N.W.2d 714, 722 (2009). ‘[I]n general, the “decision not to hire experts falls within the realm of trial strategy.”’ State v. Denz, 232 Ariz. 441, 445 , 306 P.3d 98, 102 (2013), quoting Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 228 (5th Cir.1993).”); Johnson v. State, [Ms. CR-05-1805, September 28, 2007] — So.3d -, -(Ala.Crim.App.2007) (“ ‘[I]n the context of an ineffective assistanc

2016See, e.g., Walker v. State, 194 So.3d 253 (Ala.Crim.App.2015) (“ ‘An attorney’s decision whether to retain witnesses, including expert witnesses, is a matter of trial strategy.’ People v. Payne, 285 Mich.App. 181, 190 , 774 N.W.2d 714, 722 (2009). ‘[I]n general, the “decision not to hire experts falls within the realm of trial strategy.”’ State v. Denz, 232 Ariz. 441, 445 , 306 P.3d 98, 102 (2013), quoting Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 228 (5th Cir.1993).”); Johnson v. State, [Ms. CR-05-1805, September 28, 2007] — So.3d -, -(Ala.Crim.App.2007) (“ ‘[I]n the context of an ineffective assistanc

2016See, e.g., Walker v. State, 194 So.3d 253 (Ala.Crim.App.2015) (“ ‘An attorney’s decision whether to retain witnesses, including expert witnesses, is a matter of trial strategy.’ People v. Payne, 285 Mich.App. 181, 190 , 774 N.W.2d 714, 722 (2009). ‘[I]n general, the “decision not to hire experts falls within the realm of trial strategy.”’ State v. Denz, 232 Ariz. 441, 445 , 306 P.3d 98, 102 (2013), quoting Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 228 (5th Cir.1993).”); Johnson v. State, [Ms. CR-05-1805, September 28, 2007] — So.3d -, -(Ala.Crim.App.2007) (“ ‘[I]n the context of an ineffective assistanc