Donald Dwayne Whatley v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/01/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 CR-08-0696 Donald Dwayne W h a t l e y v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal WISE, P r e s i d i n g The from M o b i l e C i r c u i t (CC-07-1107) Court Judge. appellant, Donald Dwayne W h a t l e y , capital murder f o rthe killing murder w a s made course o f a f i r s t - d e g r e e robbery, capital was c o n v i c t e d o f of Pravinbhai b e c a u s e he c o m m i t t e d Patel. The i tduring the see § 13A-5-40(a)(2),A l a . CR-08-0696 Code 1975. By W h a t l e y be a vote sentenced of to death. j u r y ' s recommendation and not file any we raises remand action so raises in his initial this that we case may 1712, the 90 L. of Batson 2d prosecution examination disparate court to death. This in of the trial address followed. brief to this record reveals court one the Whatley d i d appeal his that accepted that for additional of the i t appears t h a t the issues prosecution he of v. Kentucky, (1986). exercised the black and of a 476 U.S. Specifically, large number District veniremembers similarly struck than race. used i n a r a c i a l l y d i s c r i m i n a t o r y manner, 79, he of 106 veniremembers who Office 2 has that black and had a voir to dire engaged the in white nothing Whatley also a l l e g e s that Attorney's Ct. challenges i t struck, situated S. contends v e n i r e m e m b e r s , e n g a g e d i n l i t t l e o r no veniremembers, County 69 treatment common o t h e r the recommended brief. Ed. remove b l a c k review to i t s peremptory challenges violation trial issues properly Whatley argues that in The jury s e n t e n c e d him numerous However, our must the post-judgment motions. Whatley court. 10-2, in Mobile history of CR-08-0696 discrimination. this case The objection Therefore, for a Batson State at notes trial. his argument o n l y P. Plain error he c o n c l u d e s t h a t we should remand hearing. that Whatley Therefore, for plain did not i t argues error. See raise that Rule 45, Batson may we a review A l a . R. App. is " e r r o r t h a t i s so o b v i o u s t h a t t h e f a i l u r e t o n o t i c e i t would s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t the f a i r n e s s or i n t e g r i t y of the j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s . Ex p a r t e T a y l o r , 666 So. 2d 73 (Ala. 1995). The plain error standard a p p l i e s o n l y where a p a r t i c u l a r l y e g r e g i o u s e r r o r o c c u r r e d a t t r i a l and t h a t e r r o r has or p r o b a b l y has s u b s t a n t i a l l y p r e j u d i c e d the defendant. Taylor." Ex parte Trawick, 698 So. 2d 162, 167 (Ala. 1997). " I n B a t s o n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t b l a c k v e n i r e m e m b e r s c o u l d n o t be s t r u c k f r o m a b l a c k defendant's j u r y because of t h e i r race. In Powers v . O h i o , 499 U.S. 4 0 0 , 111 S. C t . 1 3 6 4 , 113 L. Ed. 2d 411 (1991), the c o u r t e x t e n d e d i t s d e c i s i o n i n B a t s o n t o a p p l y a l s o t o w h i t e d e f e n d a n t s . ... The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n G e o r g i a v. M c C o l l u m , 505 U.S. 42, 112 S. C t . 2 3 4 8 , 120 L. E d . 2d 33 (1992), h e l d t h a t the p r o t e c t i o n s of B a t s o n were also available to defense counsel in criminal trials. The A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t t h e p r o t e c t i o n s of Batson apply to the s t r i k i n g of white p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s . White Consolidated I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . v . A m e r i c a n L i b e r t y I n s u r a n c e Co., 617 So. 2d 657 (Ala. 1993)." Grimsley v. State, 678 So. 2d 1995). 3 1194, 1195 (Ala. Crim. App. CR-08-0696 "The b u r d e n o f p e r s u a s i o n i s i n i t i a l l y on t h e p a r t y a l l e g i n g d i s c r i m i n a t o r y use of a p e r e m p t o r y challenge to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. In d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e r e i s a prima f a c i e case, the c o u r t i s to c o n s i d e r ' a l l relevant circumstances' which could lead to an i n f e r e n c e o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . See B a t s o n , 476 U.S. at 93, 10 6 S. C t . a t 1 7 2 1 , c i t i n g Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239-42, 96 S. Ct. 2040, 2 0 4 7 - 4 8 , 48 L. E d . 2d 597 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . The f o l l o w i n g a r e i l l u s t r a t i v e of the types of evidence t h a t can be used to r a i s e the i n f e r e n c e of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n : "1. Evidence that the 'jurors in question share[d] only this one c h a r a c t e r i s t i c -- t h e i r m e m b e r s h i p i n t h e g r o u p -- a n d t h a t i n a l l o t h e r respects they [were] as heterogeneous as the community as a whole.' [People v.] W h e e l e r , 22 C a l . 3d [258 ,] a t 2 8 0 , 583 P.2d [ 7 4 8 , ] a t 7 6 4 , 148 C a l . R p t r . [ 8 9 0 , ] a t 905 [(1978)]. For instance ' i t may be s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t the persons challenged, a l t h o u g h a l l b l a c k , i n c l u d e b o t h men and women and are a variety of ages, occupations, and social or economic c o n d i t i o n s , ' W h e e l e r , 22 C a l . 3d a t 280, 583 P.2d a t 7 6 4 , 148 C a l . R p t r . a t 9 0 5 , n. 2 7 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t r a c e was t h e d e c i d i n g factor. "2. A p a t t e r n o f s t r i k e s a g a i n s t b l a c k j u r o r s on t h e p a r t i c u l a r v e n i r e ; e . g . , 4 o f 6 p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e s were used to s t r i k e black jurors. B a t s o n , 476 U.S. a t 97, 106 S. C t . a t 1723. " 3 . The p a s t c o n d u c t o f t h e o f f e n d i n g attorney i n using peremptory challenges to s t r i k e a l l b l a c k s from the j u r y v e n i r e . S w a i n [ v . A l a b a m a , 380 U.S. 2 0 2 , 85 S. C t . 8 2 4 , 13 L. E d . 2d 759 (1965)]. 4 CR-08-0696 "4. The type and manner of the offending attorney's questions and statements during voir dire, including nothing more than desultory voir dire. B a t s o n , 476 U.S. a t 9 7 , 106 S. C t . a t 1 7 2 3 ; W h e e l e r , 22 C a l . 3d a t 2 8 1 , 583 P . 2 d a t 7 6 4 , 148 C a l . R p t r . a t 9 0 5 . " 5 . The t y p e a n d m a n n e r o f q u e s t i o n s d i r e c t e d to the challenged juror, i n c l u d i n g a lack of questions, or a lack of meaningful questions. S l a p p y v . S t a t e , 503 So. 2 d 3 5 0 , 355 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) ; P e o p l e v . T u r n e r , 42 C a l . 3 d 7 1 1 , 726 P . 2 d 1 0 2 , 230 C a l . R p t r . 656 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ; P e o p l e v . W h e e l e r , 22 C a l . 3 d 2 5 8 , 583 P . 2 d 7 4 8 , 7 64 , 148 C a l . R p t r . 890 [ 9 0 5 ] ( 1 9 7 8 ) . "6. D i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t o f m e m b e r s o f the jury venire with the same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; o r who a n s w e r a q u e s t i o n i n t h e same o r s i m i l a r m a n n e r ; e . g . , i n Slappy, a black elementary school teacher was s t r u c k a s b e i n g p o t e n t i a l l y t o o l i b e r a l because of h i s j o b , but a white elementary s c h o o l t e a c h e r was n o t c h a l l e n g e d . Slappy, 503 S o . 2 d a t 352 a n d 3 5 5 . "7. D i s p a r a t e e x a m i n a t i o n o f members of t h e v e n i r e ; e.g., i n Slappy, a q u e s t i o n designed to provoke a c e r t a i n response that i s l i k e l y t o d i s q u a l i f y a j u r o r was a s k e d to b l a c k j u r o r s , b u t not t o w h i t e jurors. S l a p p y , 503 S o . 2 d a t 3 5 5 . "8. C i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e o f i n t e n t may b e p r o v e n b y d i s p a r a t e i m p a c t w h e r e a l l or most o f t h e c h a l l e n g e s were u s e d t o s t r i k e b l a c k s from the j u r y . Batson, 476 U.S. a t 9 3 , 106 S. C t . a t 1 7 2 1 ; W a s h i n g t o n v . D a v i s , 426 U.S. [ 2 2 9 , ] a t 2 4 2 [ , 96 S. C t . 2 0 4 0 , [ 2 0 4 9 ] , 48 L. E d . 2 d 597 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ] . 5 CR-08-0696 "9. The offending party used peremptory challenges to dismiss a l l or most b l a c k j u r o r s , but d i d not use a l l o f his peremptory challenges. See S l a p p y , 503 So. 2 d a t 3 5 4 , T u r n e r , s u p r a . " Ex parte Branch, Because trial, So. Whatley 2d did 609, not 622 raise ( A l a . 1987). a Batson t h e S t a t e d i d n o t h a v e an o p p o r t u n i t y allegations reasons the 526 i f r e q u i r e d by the t r i a l court, which arguments i s in a better because i t was to state i t s challenges. position to present during Also, evaluate the jury s e l e c t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s , d i d n o t h a v e an o p p o r t u n i t y t o h e a r r u l e on t h e a l l e g a t i o n s . F i n a l l y , before us, we cannot Nevertheless, the defense arguments he had properly b a s e d on t h e l i m i t e d of a Batson raises, the motion trial i t s peremptory challenges. at court trial is c h a l l e n g e s , we raising would have Although the State o f t h e many l e v e l s 6 been may reasons f o r c o n c l u d e t h a t a remand f o r a B a t s o n necessary i n l i g h t the to s t a t e the reasons f o r v e r y w e l l have r a c e - n e u t r a l and n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y its record review Whatley's a l l e g a t i o n s . o b l i g a t e d to r e q u i r e the prosecution each and our review of the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t , i f filed now at to respond to h i s court, f o r i t s e x e r c i s e of i t s peremptory trial such and, objection of j u d i c i a l hearing scrutiny CR-08-0696 that and o c c u r when a d e f e n d a n t i s c o n v i c t e d o f a c a p i t a l offense sentenced t o death. Accordingly, that court findings we remand t h i s t o conduct regarding cannot provide challenges a Batson Whatley's case to the t r i a l hearing court f o r a n d t o make allegations. written I f the prosecution r a c e - n e u t r a l reasons f o r i t s use o f peremptory against black e n t i t l e d t o a new t r i a l . veniremembers, ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2006), The trial the circuit shall clerk shall aff'd, 24 S o . 3 d 5 4 0 ( A l a . 2009). take a l l n e c e s s a r y a c t i o n t o see makes be S e e , e . g . , L e w i s v . S t a t e , 24 S o . 3 d 480 court Whatley due return to this court that at the e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e t i m e a n d w i t h i n 84 d a y s a f t e r t h e r e l e a s e o f this opinion. The r e t u r n t o r e m a n d s h a l l i n c l u d e a t r a n s c r i p t of the Batson hearing of fact. REMANDED WITH Welch, and t h e t r i a l court's written findings INSTRUCTIONS. Kellum, and Main, recuses h e r s e l f . 7 J J . , concur. Windom, J.,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.