circuit court dismissed claim in Alabama

2016Although his counsel did cross-examine the State's forensics witness, Mr. Morris's counsel failed to meet the Strickland [v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984),] 'objective standard of reasonableness,' and his failure deprived Mr. Morris of a fair trial 466 U.S. at 687 , 688 ." (C. 74-75.) The circuit court dismissed the claim pursuant to Rule 32.7(d), Ala. R.Crim.

2016Although his counsel did cross-examine the State's forensics witness, Mr. Morris's counsel failed to meet the Strickland [v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984),] 'objective standard of reasonableness,' and his failure deprived Mr. Morris of a fair trial 466 U.S. at 687 , 688 ." (C. 74-75.) The circuit court dismissed the claim pursuant to Rule 32.7(d), Ala. R.Crim.

2024If counsel had filed the motion, the Court would have granted it, and [he] would not have faced a trial, convictions, or a death sentence." (C. 842.) The circuit court dismissed this claim, finding that "Scheuing raised the issue underlying this ineffectiveness claim on direct appeal, and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that 'Scheuing has failed to establish that a violation of his right to a speedy trial occurred, much less that the circuit court committed plain error by failing to notice one.' " (C. 1221 (quoting Scheuing, 161 So. 3d at 291 ).) The circuit court further found that

2024Given the dearth of information about [his] horrible childhood and the resulting mental-health problems that ensued, there is a reasonable likelihood that a detached, neutral decisionmaker would not have convicted him of capital murder or sentenced him to death." (C. 851.) The circuit court dismissed this claim because "he raised this underlying claim on direct appeal, and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that 'the record demonstrates that the prosecutor's references to representing and speaking for the victims were limited and brief' "; thus, this Court held " 'that the prosecutor's

2022To be sure, Wimbley cites Bui v. State, 717 So. 2d 6 (Ala. Crim.

2022First, Wimbley argues that the circuit court erred when it dismissed his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel when his counsel failed to strike for cause juror W.D., who he alleged in his amended petition "was responsible for servicing Mr. Wheat's life insurance policy" and who he alleged "continued to work with Mr. Wheat's family members regarding the policy after Mr. Wheat's death." (C. 324.) The circuit court dismissed this claim because Wimbley raised the issue underlying this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, and this Court held that the circuit court " 'd

2022Third, Wimbley argues that the circuit court erred when it summarily dismissed his claim that his counsel were ineffective for failing "to move to strike members of the venire with family ties to employees of the prosecutor's office (although not to the individual prosecutors trying the case)." (Wimbley's brief, p. 34.) In his amended petition, Wimbley alleged that his counsel should have moved to strike for cause J.B., L.B., C.B., S.G., and T.H. who, he said, "were all related to employees of the prosecutor's office by blood or marriage," and that, 37 CR-20-0201 "[a]lthough the kinships ties

2012Washington asserted in his amended petition that the ABA Guidelines provide that “ ‘[c]ounsel at all stages of the case should make every appropriate effort to establish a relationship of trust with the client, and should maintain close contact with the client.’ ABA Guidelines 10.5.” (C.R. 241.) The circuit court dismissed this claim stating that it did not “contain a clear and specific statement of fact that would entitle [Washington] to relief.” (C.R. 598.) In Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 , 103 S.Ct. 1610 , 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983), the United States Supreme Court stated: “No court could possib

2012Washington asserted in his amended petition that the ABA Guidelines provide that “ ‘[c]ounsel at all stages of the case should make every appropriate effort to establish a relationship of trust with the client, and should maintain close contact with the client.’ ABA Guidelines 10.5.” (C.R. 241.) The circuit court dismissed this claim stating that it did not “contain a clear and specific statement of fact that would entitle [Washington] to relief.” (C.R. 598.) In Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 , 103 S.Ct. 1610 , 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983), the United States Supreme Court stated: “No court could possib

2005Hooks, supra. Moreover, there was no good cause for disclosing the jail visitor sign-in sheets for Jackson because this was information within Jackson’s own knowledge.