Anthony Lee Stanley v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: REL: 02/15/2013 05/03/2013 as m o d i f i e d on o v e r r u l i n g o f r e h e a r i n g Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , A l a b a m a 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, 2012-2013 CR-06-2236 Anthony Lee S t a n l e y v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from C o l b e r t C i r c u i t Court (CC-05-608) On Remand f r o m t h e A l a b a m a Supreme JOINER, Court Judge. Anthony Lee S t a n l e y appealed h i s c o n v i c t i o n and sentence of death f o rthe intentional murder o f Henry Smith, made c a p i t a l b e c a u s e i t was c o m m i t t e d d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f a f i r s t degree robbery. See § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975. This CR-06-2236 Court a f f i r m e d h i s c o n v i c t i o n but trial court findings "to amend regarding recommendation of reweigh the 2011) 29, S t a n l e y v. on of the The So. p a r o l e " and and the "to mitigating S t a n l e y v. S t a t e , 3d trial jury's ___ , ___ [Ms. (Ala. Crim. court complied with our r e t u r n t o remand, t h i s C o u r t on August a f f i r m e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s amended s e n t e n c i n g 26, 2011, and, clarify Stanley." I"). its to circumstances ___ the order imprisonment without 2011] case f o r override judicial and r e s e n t e n c e ("Stanley instructions, ___ the life CR-06-2236, A p r . App. i t s sentencing aggravating circumstances remanded t h e order. State, (Ala. Crim. [Ms. CR-06-2236, Aug. App. 2011) (opinion 26, on 2011] return So. to 3d remand) ("Stanley I I " ) . The 2012, A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t , summarily remanded the vacated case "with our i n an o r d e r judgment instructions dated August 17, in Stanley II and that [the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals] a l l o w the p a r t i e s to b r i e f the i s s u e s r a i s e d by the trial address those (No. court's i s s u e s by 1110298). instructions, amended we In sentencing further opinion." compliance ordered order, briefing 2 with on Ex the the and then parte Stanley Supreme Court's amended sentencing CR-06-2236 order. We now amended The p a r t i e s c o m p l e t e d b r i e f i n g on November address t h e i s s u e s S t a n l e y has r a i s e d sentencing order, and we again regarding the review s e n t e n c i n g o r d e r and a f f i r m S t a n l e y ' s s e n t e n c e 28, 2012. t h e amended of death. Discussion In i t s o r i g i n a l s e n t e n c i n g o r d e r and a g a i n i n i t s amended sentencing order, sufficiently proved circumstances: of the the (2) t h a t intentional Stanley murder committed while of, or committing or attempting (3) t h a t existence found of that three the State aggravating t h e use or t h r e a t of v i o l e n c e t o the commission and court (1) t h a t S t a n l e y h a d b e e n p r e v i o u s l y c o n v i c t e d a felony involving person; trial an Stanley he attempt the c a p i t a l was to an offense accomplice commit, or flight t o commit, a f i r s t - d e g r e e committed a capital in offense of the after robbery; that was e s p e c i a l l y h e i n o u s , a t r o c i o u s , o r c r u e l when c o m p a r e d t o o t h e r capital offenses. (8); See §§ 1 3 A - 5 - 4 7 ( d ) ; 1 3 A - 5 - 4 9 ( 2 ) , 13A-5-50, A l a . Code 1975; and S t a n l e y I , As t o t h e s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i n g court in i t s original sentencing 3 circumstances, order ( 4 ) , and So. 3d a t the considered trial the CR-06-2236 s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i n g circumstances See §§ 13A-5-47(d) and So. 3d a t sentencing . order and f o u n d none t o 13A-5-51, A l a . Code 1975; The exist. Stanley I, t r i a l c o u r t r e i t e r a t e d i n i t s amended that i t found no statutory mitigating circumstances. As to the trial court's findings nonstatutory m i t i g a t i n g circumstances, concerning the i n i t s s e c o n d amended s e n t e n c i n g order the t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t S t a n l e y presented evidence r e g a r d i n g h i s f a m i l y h i s t o r y and h i s a l c o h o l and abuse. Stanley presented the s p e c i a l i s t and o f h i s p a r e n t s testimony on Stanley improvement The trial evidence of drug i n Stanley's and alcohol behavior i n m i t i g a t i o n , i t d i d not to circumstance. be evidence See §§ of a 13A-5-47(d) mitigation concerning of h i s c h i l d h o o d , of since court stated that, although evidence a and h i s o l d e r s i s t e r t h e i r remorse about the d i f f i c u l t i e s effects of drug use, and the of the his incarceration. Stanley presented find and this consider nonstatutory this mitigating and 13A-15-52, A l a . amended sentencing Code 1975. The considered trial and court, found in that its the 4 jury's recommendation order, of a CR-06-2236 sentence parole of was assigned life a imprisonment nonstatutory So. 2d possibility and the j u r y ' s a d v i s o r y v e r d i c t s i g n i f i c a n t weight. Tomlin, Carroll, the m i t i g a t i n g circumstance, § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 7 ( e ) , A l a . Code 1975; parte without 852 909 So. 1215 So. 2d 833, 2d 836 ( A l a . 2001). 286 (Ala. 2003); Ex trial court then Ex parte ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ; Ex p a r t e T a y l o r , The i t See § 13A-15-52, A l a . Code 1975; 283, of 808 stated i t s reasons f o r g i v i n g the j u r y ' s recommendation the c o n s i d e r a t i o n i t gave i t , n o t i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t t h e j u r y ' s v o t e of l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t was Thereafter, circumstances the and The trial trial the sentenced Stanley to court 8 to i n favor 4. court reweighed mitigating the circumstances aggravating and again s t a t e d i n i t s amended s e n t e n c i n g order death. t h a t i t "adopt[ed] a l l p o r t i o n s of i t s o r i g i n a l Order of Court on Imposition as i f fully (RTR, C. of Sentence i n t h i s set out herein, cause dated unless June 19, amended i n t h i s 2007, Order." 219.) I n h i s b r i e f on r e t u r n t o remand, S t a n l e y i d e n t i f i e s issues. I. 5 five CR-06-2236 As court life noted, in i t s amended found t h a t the imprisonment nonstatutory therefore weight. The order, the trial j u r y ' s recommendation of a sentence without mitigating assigned sentencing the trial recommendation, s t a t e d the possibility circumstance, jury's court, advisory in and of parole the verdict rejecting was trial a court significant the jury's specifically: "The c o u r t u n d e r s t a n d s and appreciates the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the j u r y ' s recommendation, g i v e s i t significant weight, and, as mentioned, has considered t h i s m i t i g a t i n g circumstance. The c o u r t does n o t e t h o u g h t h a t t h e v o t e o f t h e j u r y was 8-4 o r 66.66% i n f a v o r o f l i f e w i t h o u t p a r o l e . "The c o u r t f u r t h e r u n d e r s t a n d s and a p p r e c i a t e s t h a t such a v e r d i c t , i n Alabama, i s a d v i s o r y f o r the t r i a l c o u r t and t h a t t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n , as r e l a t e s to s e n t e n c i n g , l i e s w i t h the t r i a l c o u r t . " T h i s c o u r t , a c c o r d i n g l y , has r e v i e w e d t e s t i m o n y g i v e n d u r i n g t h e g u i l t , p e n a l t y , and sentencing phases of the t r i a l ; Alabama law p e r t a i n i n g t o sentencing; the aggravating and mitigating circumstances o u t l i n e d i n the court's original s e n t e n c i n g o r d e r and i n t h i s o r d e r . "In a d d i t i o n , the Court would s t a t e t h a t at the time the j u r y took t h i s case under advisement they had j u s t heard emotional testimony, during the p e n a l t y phase, from [ S t a n l e y ' s ] f a m i l y , i n c l u d i n g his parents and older sister. This familial testimony included remorse over [Stanley's] c h i l d h o o d , t h e s o c i a l e f f e c t s d r u g and a l c o h o l u s a g e had on [ S t a n l e y ] ; how c a r i n g [ S t a n l e y ] was and had become; i m p r o v e m e n t i n [ S t a n l e y ' s ] b e h a v i o r since 6 of CR-06-2236 i n c a r c e r a t e d a n d i n g e n e r a l , how h a r d t h i s h a s b e e n on t h e i r f a m i l y . "The jury had a l s o heard testimony from m i t i g a t i o n s p e c i a l i s t , D r . J . D a v i s M a r t i n , who l i k e w i s e t e s t i f i e d as t o [ S t a n l e y ' s ] t r o u b l e d y o u t h , and t h a t , ' i f [ S t a n l e y ] i s s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h t h a t [Stanley's parents'] h e a l t h would d e t e r i o r a t e v e r y t r a u m a t i c a l l y a n d q u i c k l y ... so n o t o n l y w o u l d [ S t a n l e y ] be p u t t o d e a t h , t h e w h o l e f a m i l y u n i t would e s s e n t i a l l y break a p a r t . ' " I t was i n d e e d , g u t - w r e n c h i n g t e s t i m o n y , a n d t h e c o u r t can f u l l y understand a j u r y f e e l i n g compassion for the Stanley family. "Nevertheless, the court finds that the three (3) a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s i t h a s f o u n d t o e x i s t far outweigh the nonstatutory mitigating c i r c u m s t a n c e even though i t e x i s t s i n t h e form o f a jury verdict. " F u r t h e r , t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t many p e o p l e l i v e in f a r worse family circumstances than what [Stanley] experienced; that many people have s u f f e r e d f r o m t h e r a v a g e s o f d r u g a n d a l c o h o l abuse s u c h as [ S t a n l e y ] ; t h a t many p e o p l e have grown up i n s o c i a l l y e c o n o m i c a l l y i m p o v e r i s h e d c o n d i t i o n s such as [ S t a n l e y ] ; y e t , few, i n d e e d v e r y few, go on t o commit a capital murder crime of the nature [Stanley] committed. " F u r t h e r , t h e c o u r t f i n d s no c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t h a t any o f t h e s e f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c e d t h e c o m m i s s i o n of t h e crime [ S t a n l e y ] committed. "The c o u r t c a n n o t f a t h o m t h e h o r r o r a n d t e r r o r the v i c t i m e x p e r i e n c e d from t h e b r u t a l i t y [ S t a n l e y ] p e r p e t r a t e d on h i m . As t h i s c o u r t s t a t e d i n i t s o r i g i n a l sentencing order, to-wit: "'By any standard 7 acceptable to CR-06-2236 c i v i l i z e d s o c i e t y , t h i s c r i m e was extremely gruesome and b a r b a r i c . I t was perpetuated w i t h a h e a r t l e s s i n f l i c t i o n of b r u t a l i t y and with utter indifference to the s u f f e r i n g o f t h e v i c t i m and w i t h a t o t a l disregard of human l i f e . The court r e c o g n i z e s t h a t a l l c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s are heinous, atrocious and c r u e l to some e x t e n t , but the degree of heinousness, atrociousness and cruelty which c h a r a c t e r i z e s t h i s o f f e n s e exceeds t h a t w h i c h i s common t o a l l c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s . ' " I t i s d i f f i c u l t f o r t h i s c o u r t t o i m a g i n e any c a s e more d e s e r v i n g o f t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y . The s e n s e l e s s b a r b a r i c and a n i m a l i s t i c n a t u r e o f t h i s crime p r o v i d e s a major reason t h i s court b e l i e v e s a j u r y o v e r r i d e not o n l y i s j u s t i f i e d but necessary u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s and f o r j u s t i c e t o p r e v a i l . " T h i s c o u r t does n o t make t h i s d e c i s i o n l i g h t l y b u t w i t h a g r e a t d e a l o f t h o u g h t and d e l i b e r a t i o n buttressed by a strong sense of b e h a v i o r any c i v i l i z e d s o c i e t y can w i t h s t a n d . "Therefore, after c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a l l the m a t t e r s t h a t were p r e s e n t e d to t h i s court, the testimony heard at t r i a l and at the sentencing hearing before t h i s court, both i n aggravation and m i t i g a t i o n and a f t e r t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e a g g r a v a t i n g and m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s s e t o u t i n t h e c o u r t ' s original sentencing order and this amended s e n t e n c i n g o r d e r and f o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d i n t h i s o r d e r , t h e C o u r t does now f i n d t h a t t h e a g g r a v a t i n g circumstances outweigh the m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s , and the C o u r t does h e r e b y o v e r r i d e t h e jury's r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f l i f e w i t h o u t p a r o l e and does a f f i x [Stanley's] punishment at death by lethal injection." (RTR. C. 216-18.) 8 CR-06-2236 Stanley argues, i n Issue court's override failed to governing of comply judicial Specifically, the with I of h i s b r i e f , jury's life Alabama Stanley Carroll, Tomlin, 909 So. in Court the override So. 833 brief, 2d 1215 852 So. 2d (Ala. 2d 283 ( A l a . 2003) . p. 10.) is and rule to j u r y l i f e votes objective reasons to question fact-finding access and parte from those reliability (whether t h a t i s because the to a l l relevant information follow their oaths)." give o v e r r i d e o n l y when t h e r e the or of the are jury's j u r y d i d not have j u r o r s were u n a b l e ( S t a n l e y ' s b r i e f , p. Ex Ex cases, according to Stanley, i s that " t r i a l courts should deference in ( A l a . 2001); 2002); The case precedents that contends trial this (Stanley's c o n f l i c t w i t h Ex p a r t e T a y l o r , 808 parte verdict Supreme override." t h a t "the to 12.) S t a n l e y argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t f a i l e d t o comply w i t h T a y l o r , C a r r o l l , and T o m l i n b e c a u s e , he s a y s , " t h e t r i a l provided no justification disagreement w i t h the mitigating for override other j u r y ' s w e i g h i n g of the circumstances, jury's r o l e to a n u l l i t y . " and thus than court i t s mere aggravating reduced the ( S t a n l e y ' s r e p l y b r i e f , p. 2.) We disagree. 9 improperly and CR-06-2236 I n T a y l o r , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t , b a s e d the requirements "the trial of § 13A-5-47(d) and j u d g e must s t a t e s p e c i f i c (e), 1 A l a . Code reasons f o r g i v i n g j u r y ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n he gave i t . " 2d a t 1219. g i v i n g the 1 1975, the So. As i n d i c a t e d i n t h e q u o t e d p o r t i o n o f t h e amended s e n t e n c i n g order, the t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d the " s p e c i f i c for 808 on j u r y ' s recommendation the S e c t i o n 13A-5-47(d) and (e) reasons consideration provide: "(d) B a s e d upon t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l , the evidence p r e s e n t e d d u r i n g the sentence h e a r i n g , and t h e p r e - s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t and any evidence submitted i n connection w i t h i t , the t r i a l court shall enter specific written findings c o n c e r n i n g the e x i s t e n c e or nonexistence of each aggravating circumstance enumerated in Section 13A-5-49, e a c h m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e e n u m e r a t e d i n S e c t i o n 13A-5-51, and any additional mitigating c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f f e r e d p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n 13A-5-52. The t r i a l c o u r t s h a l l a l s o e n t e r w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s o f f a c t s s u m m a r i z i n g t h e c r i m e and t h e defendant's participation ini t . "(e) I n d e c i d i n g upon t h e s e n t e n c e , t h e t r i a l court shall determine whether the aggravating circumstances i t finds to exist outweigh the m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s i t f i n d s t o e x i s t , and i n doing so the trial court shall consider the recommendation of the j u r y c o n t a i n e d i n i t s a d v i s o r y verdict, unless s u c h a v e r d i c t has b e e n w a i v e d p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n 13A-5-46(a) o r 13A-5-46(g). While the j u r y ' s recommendation c o n c e r n i n g sentence s h a l l be g i v e n c o n s i d e r a t i o n , i t i s n o t b i n d i n g upon the c o u r t . " 10 [the CR-06-2236 trial court] gave i t , " Taylor, trial court therefore complied things, given the t r i a l court "gut-wrenching" noted 808 So. 2d a t 1219, a n d t h e with that Taylor. Among the Stanley and " e m o t i o n a l " other f a m i l y had testimony expressing remorse over S t a n l e y ' s c h i l d h o o d and t h e e f f e c t s t h a t drug and a l c o h o l u s a g e h a d h a d on S t a n l e y . described as "gut-wrenching" indicating that "traumatic" and " q u i c k " health a and cause apart." death and sentence the t r i a l "emotional" would family likely trial family court noted circumstances "that than many p e o p l e what [Stanley] a parents' break with the jury's c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h i s e v i d e n c e was m i t i g a t i n g . the cause to "essentially c o u r t , however, d i s a g r e e d court testimony d e t e r i o r a t i o n of Stanley's the Stanley The t r i a l Further, 2 Specifically, live i n f a r worse experienced; that many p e o p l e have s u f f e r e d f r o m t h e r a v a g e s o f d r u g a n d a l c o h o l abuse s u c h as socially economically [Stanley]; capital [ S t a n l e y ] ; t h a t many p e o p l e have grown up i n impoverished y e t , few, i n d e e d murder crime very conditions few, go of the nature on [Stanley] such t o commit as a committed." I n P a r t I V , we a d d r e s s S t a n l e y ' s a r g u m e n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o f i n d t h i s e v i d e n c e t o be m i t i g a t i o n evidence. 2 11 CR-06-2236 Additionally, credible the trial evidence that commission of the In C a r r o l l , crime court any of stated these [Stanley] that i t "[found] factors influenced committed." t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t no the 3 stated: "We t a k e t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y t o f u r t h e r e x p l a i n t h e effect of a jury's recommendation of life imprisonment without the p o s s i b i l i t y of parole. Such a recommendation i s t o be treated as a m i t i g a t i n g circumstance. The w e i g h t t o be given t h a t m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s h o u l d d e p e n d upon t h e number o f j u r o r s recommending a s e n t e n c e o f life imprisonment without parole, and a l s o upon the strength of the factual basis for such a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n i n t h e f o r m o f i n f o r m a t i o n known t o t h e j u r y , s u c h as c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e concerning the i d e n t i t y of the 'triggerman' or a recommendation o f l e n i e n c y by t h e v i c t i m ' s f a m i l y ; t h e jury's recommendation may be overridden based upon i n f o r m a t i o n known o n l y t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t and n o t t o t h e j u r y , when s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n can p r o p e r l y be u s e d to undermine a m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e . " Carroll, 852 So. 2d a t 836 (emphasis added). A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t a 12-0 life imprisonment entitled trial to court "great without the weight." complied with Carroll the j u r y recommendation of possibility 909 In Tomlin, So. 2d at and Tomlin of 286. parole Here, (1) by was the finding I n P a r t V, we a d d r e s s S t a n l e y ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s statement i n t h i s regard i s i n c o n f l i c t w i t h Tennard v. D r e t k e , 542 U.S. 274 ( 2 0 0 4 ) , and S m i t h v. T e x a s , 543 U.S. 37 (2004). 3 12 CR-06-2236 t h a t t h e j u r y ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n was circumstance, ... "a n o n - s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i n g and t h e c o u r t does c o n s i d e r i t , " and (2) by a s s i g n i n g the j u r y ' s recommendation " s i g n i f i c a n t w e i g h t " based on the 8-4 vote p o s s i b i l i t y of in (the trial evidence found court that brutality life trial imprisonment without court advisory not find presented. Stanley's "was found that f a r outweighed the jury's did Stanley b a r b a r i c " and victim the circumstances circumstance The of the parole. Ultimately, aggravating favor crime one verdict). contrast, was the the "extremely three mitigating (RTR compelling In the C. 217.) mitigating trial court gruesome perpetrated with a heartless i n f l i c t i o n and w i t h u t t e r i n d i f f e r e n c e t o t h e s u f f e r i n g o f and with and a total d i s r e g a r d o f human l i f e . " (RTR of the C. 218.) Stanley decision has is in not conflict Moreover, Stanley's T o m l i n and Carroll, trial court's demonstrated case with Taylor, is factually i n which the o v e r r i d e of the imprisonment without the that the trial Tomlin, or court's Carroll. d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from Supreme C o u r t r e v e r s e d j u r y ' s recommendation of p o s s i b i l i t y of p a r o l e . 13 In the life Tomlin, CR-06-2236 the jury's recommendation i m p r i s o n m e n t , and o n l y one t h a t "'[Tomlin] was 12-0 aggravating in favor of circumstance committed murder i n the first life existed-¬ degree wherein two human b e i n g s were i n t e n t i o n a l l y k i l l e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t by a s e r i e s of court's acts.'" order). 909 So. Further, 2d the at 285 trial (quoting court the trial justified the o v e r r i d e b a s e d on an i m p e r m i s s i b l e factor--i.e., that "'[t]he other ... perpetrator in this sentenced to death.'" crime 909 So. 2d was a t 287 convicted ... (quoting the trial court's order). I n C a r r o l l , t h e j u r y ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n was 2 life in favor involved taken the of one place aggravating during override Carroll's Carroll, 8-4 circumstance--that based, in part, on an trial Tomlin, the Carroll murder court 10¬ had justified impermissible factor: incarceration for youthful-offender adjudications. 852 So. 2d a t Further, circumstances, capital 835-36. case, i n f a v o r of l i f e of p a r o l e . the Like a robbery--and the In the p r e s e n t was imprisonment. and as however, the j u r y ' s recommendation imprisonment without noted, there the possibility were t h r e e aggravating i n c l u d i n g the a g g r a v a t i n g offense [Stanley] 14 circumstance committed was "[t]hat especially CR-06-2236 heinous, atrocious, offenses" (RTR C. 2 1 6 ) - - a p o i n t t h e t r i a l court emphasized i n its o v e r r i d i n g the j u r y ' s advisory verdict. order there i s no override Carroll or cruel i n d i c a t i o n that based on any compared the t r i a l impermissible to other court capital Finally, justified i t s factor. and T o m l i n a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h i s Therefore, case. II. Stanley argues, i n Issue I I of h i s b r i e f , that "the t r i a l court's override based mitigation evidence mitigation in Amendments." on the presentation the jury's negated violation [of] the (Stanley's b r i e f , classic consideration Eighth p. 17.) of and Stanley Fourteenth contends: "The o n l y j u s t i f i c a t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t gave for d i s c o u n t i n g the j u r y ' s v e r d i c t i s that the j u r y considered classic m i t i g a t i n g evidence--'remorse over [Stanley's] childhood, the s o c i a l a f f e c t s drug and a l c o h o l u s a g e h a d on [ S t a n l e y ] ; how c a r i n g [Stanley] was a n d h a d become; improvement i n [Stanley's] behavior since i n c a r c e r a t e d and i n g e n e r a l , how h a r d t h i s h a d b e e n on [Stanley's] f a m i l y ' - - a n d may have u n d e r s t a n d a b l y r e s p o n d e d t o t h i s m i t i g a t i n g evidence with 'compassion.' By r e j e c t i n g the j u r y ' s v e r d i c t because i t c o n s i d e r e d m i t i g a t i n g evidence, the judge u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y negated the j u r y ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of m i t i g a t i o n . " I f t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t c a n be e n t i t l e d t o l e s s weight because i t c o n s i d e r e d l e g i t i m a t e m i t i g a t i n g evidence, then the j u r y ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h i s e v i d e n c e was i n e f f e c t e x c l u d e d f r o m t h e s e n t e n c i n g 15 of CR-06-2236 determination. A t a minimum, ' i t was as i f t h e t r i a l judge had i n s t r u c t e d a j u r y t o d i s r e g a r d the mitigating evidence [Stanley] p r o f f e r e d on h i s b e h a l f , ' E d d i n g s [ v . O k l a h o m a ] , 455 U.S. [104,] a t 114 [(1982)], which would unquestionably be unconstitutional." T h i s argument i s w i t h o u t merit. The t r i a l court d i d not exclude m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e from t h e j u r y ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n , nor did any a c t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t have t h e e f f e c t o f e x c l u d i n g such evidence from t h e j u r y ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n . As we d i s c u s s i n more d e t a i l i n P a r t I V , t h e t r i a l has t h e a u t h o r i t y under jury's sentencing Alabama law t o disagree with court the recommendation i n a c a p i t a l case, i n c l u d i n g t h e a u t h o r i t y (1) t o d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e j u r y ' s c o n c l u s i o n c e r t a i n evidence i s m i t i g a t i n g under the p a r t i c u l a r that f a c t s of t h e c a s e a n d (2) t o d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e w e i g h t t h e j u r y a s s i g n s aggravating and m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s f a c t s of the case. jury's court disagreed with the life-imprisonment-without-the-possibility-of-parole recommendation nature Here, t h e t r i a l under t h e p a r t i c u l a r of upbringing, the because the "emotional" mitigating h i s drug evidence and a l c o h o l and "gut-wrenching" (regarding usage, a n d how Stanley's Stanley's crime and h i s i n c a r c e r a t i o n had a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d t h e S t a n l e y family) had, i n t h e t r i a l court's 16 view, caused the j u r y t o CR-06-2236 attribute more w e i g h t appropriate, aggravating given t o the m i t i g a t i n g evidence the p a r t i c u l a r l y circumstances. than egregious nature The t r i a l court's was of the disagreement w i t h t h e j u r y f o r t h o s e reasons i s n o t p r o h i b i t e d by Alabama law. See, e . g . , T a y l o r , 808 o v e r r i d e where, i n t h e t r i a l So. 2d i n discounting the m i t i g a t i n g evidence, the jurors diligent, after in this were a n d a t t e n t i v e , some they found at best, only cooperative, j u r o r s ' outbursts the defendant the death penalty faintly regarding court found t h a t " ' [ w ] h i l e guilty of i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y were o v e r w h e l m e d b y t h e i r to consider (affirming the jury's conclusion the t r i a l case 1219 court's opinion, the defendant's c r i m e s were " ' a b o m i n a b l y a g g r a v a t e d and, mitigated'"; at harmonious, of emotion capital murder impending as r e q u i r e d b y l a w " ) ; 4 duty S c o t t v. S t a n l e y p o i n t s out t h a t the t r i a l court here found i n i t s o r i g i n a l sentencing order t h a t "the elements of passion, p r e j u d i c e o r o t h e r a r b i t r a r y f a c t o r s were n o t p r e s e n t i n t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t which a f f i x e d punishment a t l i f e imprisonment without parole." (C. 273.) Stanley argues t h a t Taylor i s t h e r e f o r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . We d i s a g r e e . Although the t r i a l c o u r t i n T a y l o r s t a t e d t h a t some o f t h e j u r o r s h a d " o u t b u r s t s o f e m o t i o n " a f t e r t h e v e r d i c t o f g u i l t y was e n t e r e d , t h e t r i a l court d i d not expressly f i n d that the jury's sentencing r e c o m m e n d a t i o n i n t h a t c a s e was t h e r e s u l t o f " p a s s i o n , p r e j u d i c e , or other a r b i t r a r y f a c t o r s . " In Stanley's case, i t was n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o f i n d t h a t t h e jury's r e c o m m e n d a t i o n was n o t t h e r e s u l t o f "passion, 4 17 CR-06-2236 State, [Ms. CR-08-1747, O c t . 5, 2012] C r i m . App. 2012) ( a f f i r m i n g t h e t r i a l jury's recommendation of life So. 3d , (Ala. court's override of the imprisonment without the p o s s i b i l i t y o f p a r o l e where t h e o v e r r i d e was b a s e d , i n p a r t , on t h e " e m o t i o n a l " n a t u r e o f t h e m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e the jury heard). III. Stanley trial court regarding presented argues, failed many of i n Issue I I I of h i s b r i e f , t o adequately the consider non-statutory a n d make f i n d i n g s mitigating i n v i o l a t i o n o f s t a t e and f e d e r a l law." b r i e f , p. 21.) make " c l e a r " that "the factors (Stanley's Stanley asserts that the t r i a l court f a i l e d to findings regarding the f o l l o w i n g : (1) S t a n l e y b e g a n u s i n g d r u g s as a c h i l d a n d r e c e i v e d i n p a t i e n t d r u g t r e a t m e n t f o r s i x weeks as a t e e n a g e r ; (2) Stanley's drug b r a i n development; use l i k e l y seriously affected his p r e j u d i c e , o r o t h e r a r b i t r a r y f a c t o r s " even though t h e j u r y ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n was l i k e l y i n f l u e n c e d b y " e m o t i o n a l " a n d " g u t wrenching" testimony. I n d e e d , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s amended s e n t e n c i n g o r d e r r e c o g n i z e s t h a t c o m p a s s i o n was a r e a s o n a b l e ( i . e . , n o t an a r b i t r a r y ) r e s p o n s e t o t h e m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e t h e j u r y h e a r d ; as o u r o p i n i o n d i s c u s s e s , h o w e v e r , i t a l s o was reasonable f o r the t r i a l court t o disagree with the j u r y ' s weighing of evidence of aggravating and m i t i g a t i n g circumstances. 18 CR-06-2236 (3) S t a n l e y ' s d r u g a d d i c t i o n i n c l u d e d b e c o m i n g a d d i c t e d t o p a i n m e d i c a t i o n a f t e r he b r o k e h i s n e c k a n d b a c k i n a car accident; (4) Stanley had been using crack c o n t i n u o u s l y f o r t h e s i x months b e f o r e cocaine he k i l l e d (5) S t a n l e y h a d been u s i n g c r a c k c o c a i n e w i t h o u t e a t i n g o r s l e e p i n g when he k i l l e d almost Smith; f o r f o u r days Smith; (6) S t a n l e y had d r a m a t i c a l l y changed f o r t h e b e t t e r s i n c e he s t o p p e d u s i n g d r u g s a f t e r h i s a r r e s t , w h i c h , Stanley says, shows he had the p o t e n t i a l for r e h a b i l i t a t i o n through drug treatment; (7) S t a n l e y h a d c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h h i s f a m i l y , a n d his execution would n e g a t i v e l y a f f e c t h i s f a m i l y ; (8) S t a n l e y h a d b e e n a t t a c h e d t o h i s g r a n d f a t h e r a n d h a d devoted five years t o c a r i n g f o r him before h i s grandfather's death; (9) Stanley had a h i s t o r y , beginning i n h i s childhood, of d e p r e s s i o n , a n x i e t y , and h y p e r t e n s i o n ; (10) S t a n l e y h a d l o s t c o n s c i o u s n e s s on two o c c a s i o n s , " p o t e n t i a l l y i n d i c a t i n g a concussion or other b r a i n injury"; (11) " S t a n l e y w o u l d be a good p e e r c o u n s e l o r p r i s o n e r s " ; and (12) S t a n l e y was t a l e n t e d a t w r i t i n g f o r other poetry. ( S t a n l e y ' s b r i e f , p p . 21-25.) As Stanley regarding acknowledges, the t r i a l several of the s p e c i f i c particular, the t r i a l facts c o u r t made s p e c i f i c 19 c o u r t made f i n d i n g s listed above. In findings regarding CR-06-2236 Stanley's family history, the Stanley's life: history, trial a n d , as court Stanley a part included of that various family facts about grew up i n an i m p o v e r i s h e d home; S t a n l e y ' s p a r e n t s ' r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h e a c h o t h e r was v o l a t i l e , and h i s parents were violent t o each other; Stanley began d r i n k i n g a t an e a r l y a g e ; S t a n l e y e s s e n t i a l l y r a i s e d h i m s e l f f r o m an e a r l y age; S t a n l e y h a d s u f f e r e d many e f f e c t s f r o m d r u g and a l c o h o l u s e ; a n d S t a n l e y h a d b e e n c a r i n g b e f o r e t h e c r i m e , and h i s behavior had improved s i n c e h i s i n c a r c e r a t i o n . (RTR C. 215-17.) In Ex p a r t e L e w i s , Supreme C o u r t 24 So. 3d 540 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) , t h e A l a b a m a stated: " I n C l a r k v. S t a t e , 896 So. 2d 584 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) , t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s c o n d u c t e d a proper review of a t r i a l court's f a i l u r e t o f i n d that p r o f f e r e d evidence constituted a mitigating circumstance, s t a t i n g , i n p e r t i n e n t part: "'The s e n t e n c i n g o r d e r shows t h a t t h e trial court considered a l l of the m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d b y C l a r k . The t r i a l court d i d not l i m i t or r e s t r i c t Clark i n any way as t o t h e e v i d e n c e he p r e s e n t e d or t h e arguments he made regarding mitigating circumstances. In i t s sentencing order, the t r i a l court addressed each statutory mitigating circumstance l i s t e d i n § 13A-5-51, A l a . Code 1975, a n d it determined that none of those circumstances e x i s t e d under t h e evidence 20 CR-06-2236 presented. Although the t r i a l court d i d not list a n d make f i n d i n g s as t o t h e existence or nonexistence of each nonstatutory mitigating circumstance o f f e r e d b y C l a r k , as n o t e d a b o v e , s u c h a l i s t i n g i s n o t r e q u i r e d , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s n o t making such f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e s only t h a t the t r i a l court found the o f f e r e d e v i d e n c e n o t t o be m i t i g a t i n g , n o t t h a t t h e t r i a l court d i d not consider t h i s evidence. Clearly, the t r i a l court considered Clark's proffered evidence of m i t i g a t i o n but concluded that the evidence d i d not r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f a m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e . The t r i a l court's f i n d i n g s i n t h i s regard are s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d . "'Because i t i s c l e a r from a r e v i e w o f the e n t i r e r e c o r d t h a t t h e t r i a l court understood i t s duty t o consider a l l the m i t i g a t i n g evidence presented by C l a r k , that the t r i a l court d i d i n fact consider all such evidence, and t h a t t h e t r i a l court's f i n d i n g s are supported by t h e evidence, we f i n d no e r r o r , p l a i n o r otherwise, i n the t r i a l court's findings r e g a r d i n g t h e s t a t u t o r y and n o n s t a t u t o r y mitigating circumstances.' "896 Ex So. 2d a t 652-53 parte Lewis, establish, list a trial 24 So. (emphasis added)." 3d a t 545. As Lewis In mitigating i t s amended acknowledged that Clark c o u r t i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o make an i t e m i z e d o f t h e e v i d e n c e i t f i n d s does n o t r i s e nonstatutory and to the l e v e l of circumstances. sentencing Stanley order, presented 21 the evidence trial court regarding h i s CR-06-2236 f a m i l y h i s t o r y and h i s a l c o h o l and the cited trial court specialist and concerning their childhood, testimony Stanley's remorse parents about the trial from and a his mitigation older difficulties in Stanley's court, behavior however, since stated that, his and o f t o be 47(d) and nonstatutory m i t i g a t i n g evidence. 13A-15-52, A l a . Code the Stanley his alcohol See and consider §§ 13A-5- 1975. "'It i s not r e q u i r e d t h a t the evidence s u b m i t t e d by t h e a c c u s e d as a n o n - s t a t u t o r y m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e be w e i g h e d as a m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e by t h e sentencer, i n t h i s case, the t r i a l c o u r t ; a l t h o u g h consideration of a l l mitigating c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s r e q u i r e d , the d e c i s i o n of whether a particular mitigating c i r c u m s t a n c e i s p r o v e n and t h e w e i g h t t o be g i v e n i t r e s t s w i t h the sentencer. Cochran v. S. taat e , 500 So. 2d ^ ^ t te, 1161 ( A l a . C r i m . App. ), a f f ' d i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , remanded on o t h e r p a r t , 500 So. 2d 1179 ( A l a . 1985), a f f ' d on r e t u r n t o remand, 500 So. 2d 1188 (Ala. C r . A p p . ) , a f f ' d 500 So. 2d 1064 (Ala. 1 9 8 6 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 481 U.S. 1033, 107 S. C t . 1965, 95 L. Ed. 2d 537 (1987).' "Haney v. S t a t e , 603 So. 2d 368, 389 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 9 9 1 ) , a f f ' d , 603 So. 2d 412 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . See 22 his incarceration. and abuse i n m i t i g a t i o n , i t d i d n o t f i n d and this sister of although p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e o f h i s f a m i l y h i s t o r y and d r u g use specifically, t h e e f f e c t s o f h i s d r u g and a l c o h o l u s e , improvement The from the drug abuse; CR-06-2236 a l s o L e w i s v. S t a t e , 24 So. 3d 480, App. 2 0 0 6 ) ; Yeomans v. S t a t e , 898 905 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2004)." S p e n c e r v. S t a t e , 58 So. 3d 215, ( o p i n i o n on r e t u r n t o s e c o n d Before i t circumstances trial court Stanley's reweighed had the aggravating that history in did the determining circumstances trial existed court c l e a r l y p r e s e n t e d by Stanley. is to entitled Spencer, 5 relief the not recommendation of l i f e imprisonment parole, App. 2008) remand). determined Thus, mitigating ( A l a . Crim. and mitigating i n i t s amended s e n t e n c i n g o r d e r on remand, t h e family evidence. 255 531, ( A l a . C r i m . So. 2d 878, 904 this constitute that other no regarding mitigating nonstatutory than the jury's w i t h o u t the p o s s i b i l i t y of c o n s i d e r e d a l l the S t a n l e y has on testimony not demonstrated claim. See evidence that Lewis, he supra; supra; Clark, supra. IV. In court's I s s u e IV o f h i s b r i e f , refusal to find and S t a n l e y argues t h a t "the consider undisputed trial mitigating Because the t r i a l c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d the evidence S t a n l e y o f f e r e d , the cases S t a n l e y c i t e s r e g a r d i n g a c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o c o n s i d e r m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e a r e i n a p p o s i t e . See S t a n l e y ' s b r i e f , p. 25. 5 23 CR-06-2236 circumstances (Stanley's conflicts brief, p. with 26.) state In L o c k e t t and v. federal Ohio, 438 law." U.S. 586 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 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 i n a c a p i t a l c a s e , t h e s e n t e n c e r - - t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h i s case--may n o t precluded of a f r o m c o n s i d e r i n g , as a m i t i g a t i n g f a c t o r , any defendant's character c i r c u m s t a n c e s of the o f f e n s e or record and any 438 a l s o E d d i n g s v. Oklahoma, 455 113-14 (1982) considering any I n Thompson v. S t a t e , So. 3d , U.S. 104, n o t by s t a t u t e p r e c l u d e mitigating aspect of the t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t p r o f f e r s as b a s i s f o r a sentence l e s s than death." t h a t " t h e S t a t e may "be U.S. a t 604. the s e n t e n c e r from CR-05-0073, Feb. ( A l a . 2012), t h i s Court 17, 2012] stated: " ' " W h i l e L o c k e t t [v. O h i o , 438 U.S. 586 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , ] and i t s progeny r e q u i r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a l l evidence s u b m i t t e d as m i t i g a t i o n , w h e t h e r t h e e v i d e n c e i s a c t u a l l y f o u n d t o be m i t i g a t i n g i s i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e s e n t e n c i n g a u t h o r i t y . " ' Ex p a r t e S l a t o n , 680 So. 2d 909, 924 ( A l a . 1996) ( q u o t i n g B a n k h e a d v. S t a t e , 585 So. 2d 97, 108 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1989)). 'The w e i g h t t o be a t t a c h e d t o t h e ... m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e i s s t r i c t l y w i t h i n the d i s c r e t i o n of the sentencing authority.' S m i t h v. S t a t e , 908 So. 2d 273, 298 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000). "'"[T]he s e n t e n c i n g a u t h o r i t y i n Alabama, t h e t r i a l j u d g e , has u n l i m i t e d d i s c r e t i o n to consider any perceived mitigating circumstances, and he can assign 24 See (noting factor"). [Ms. a CR-06-2236 appropriate weight to p a r t i c u l a r m i t i g a t i n g circumstances. The United States C o n s t i t u t i o n does n o t r e q u i r e t h a t s p e c i f i c weights be assigned to different a g g r a v a t i n g and m i t i g a t i n g circumstances. M u r r y v. S t a t e , 455 So. 2d 53 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 3 ) , r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 455 So. 2d 72 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . Therefore, the t r i a l judge is free to consider each case individually and determine whether a particular aggravating circumstance outweighs the m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s or vice versa. Moore v. B a l k c o m , 716 F.2d 1511 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1983) . The determination of whether the a g g r a v a t i n g circumstances outweigh the m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s n o t a n u m e r i c a l one, b u t i n s t e a d i n v o l v e s t h e g r a v i t y o f t h e a g g r a v a t i o n as compared to the m i t i g a t i o n . " ' "Bush v. S t a t e , 695 So. 2d 70, 94 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1995) ( q u o t i n g C l i s b y v. S t a t e , 456 So. 2d 99, 102 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 3 ) ) . See a l s o D o u g l a s v. S t a t e , 878 So. 2d 1246, 1260 ( F l a . 2004) ('We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n giving little weight to the mitigating facts r e l a t i n g t o [the d e f e n d a n t ' s ] a b u s i v e c h i l d h o o d . ' ) ; H i n e s v. S t a t e , 856 N.E.2d 1275, 1282-83 ( I n d . App. 2006) ('The t r i a l c o u r t i s not o b l i g e d to weigh or credit m i t i g a t i n g f a c t o r s the way a defendant suggests.... [or] t o a f f o r d any weight to [the defendant's] childhood h i s t o r y as a mitigating f a c t o r i n t h a t [ t h e d e f e n d a n t ] n e v e r e s t a b l i s h e d why his past victimization led to his current behavior.')." (Emphasis added.) This Court, i n n o t i n g t h a t evidence of a d i f f i c u l t background might--but also might 25 not--be family considered a CR-06-2236 mitigating c i r c u m s t a n c e , has s t a t e d : "Evidence of a d i f f i c u l t childhood h a s been c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a ' d o u b l e - e d g e d ' s w o r d . See B a c o n v. L e e , 225 F.3d 470, 481 (4th C i r . 2000). '[E]mphasizing a c l i e n t ' s deprived childhood does n o t have a v e r y b e n e f i c i a l i m p a c t on a n o r t h w e s t F l o r i d a j u r y , g i v e n t h e f a c t t h a t many j u r o r s have had d i f f i c u l t l i v e s , b u t have n o t t u r n e d t o c r i m i n a l c o n d u c t . ' C a r d v. Dugger, 911 F.2d 1494, 1511 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1990). What one j u r o r f i n d s t o be m i t i g a t i o n a n o t h e r j u r o r may f i n d a g g r a v a t i n g . '[M]itigation may be i n t h e e y e o f t h e b e h o l d e r . ' S t a n l e y v. Z a n t , 697 F.2d 955, 969 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 3 ) . " D a v i s v. S t a t e , Stanley's find 44 So. 3d 1118, 1141 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . argument a mitigating circumstance evidence necessarily consider that the i s that means mitigating a trial based that Stanley mitigating failure on c e r t a i n the t r i a l evidence. concept of c o n s i d e r i n g court's to mitigating court d i d not thus conflates evidence with finding that a m i t i g a t i n g circumstance a c t u a l l y e x i s t s i n a p a r t i c u l a r case. T h i s argument h a s been r e j e c t e d . See, e . g . , Ex p a r t e Hart, 612 So. 2d 536, 542 ("Lockett require that a l l evidence offered f o u n d t o be m i t i g a t i n g . exclude ( A l a . 1992) evidence that Lockett as m i t i g a t i n g does n o t e v i d e n c e be p r o v i d e s t h a t a s t a t e may n o t the defendant claims i s mitigating. T h i s does n o t mean t h a t a l l e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d b y t h e d e f e n d a n t as m i t i g a t i n g must be f o u n d t o be m i t i g a t i n g a n d c o n s i d e r e d as 26 CR-06-2236 such i n t h e s e n t e n c i n g p r o c e s s . " (emphasis a d d e d ) ) ; Ex p a r t e F e r g u s o n , 814 So. 2d 970, 976 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ; Ex p a r t e Trawick, 698 So. 2d 162, 177 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ; Ex p a r t e S l a t o n , 680 So. 2d 909, 924 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ; S p e n c e r , 58 So. 3d a t 257. Here, a l t h o u g h t h e t r i a l c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y noted t h a t i t considered Stanley's family h i s t o r y - - i n c l u d i n g a l l the various evidence discussed i n more detail i n Part I I I such S t a n l e y ' s drug and a l c o h o l use and h i s c h i l d h o o d trial court constitute u l t i m a t e l y found that this a m i t i g a t i n g circumstance facts of t h i s poverty--the evidence under as d i d not the p a r t i c u l a r case. S t a n l e y a s s e r t s t h a t " t h e r e was no f a c t u a l d i s p u t e existence the about reply brief, of these p. 13.) The concluding that this circumstances, circumstances." trial court's evidence, (Stanley's stated under was n o t m i t i g a t i n g were reasons f o r the particular (1) S t a n l e y ' s sisters f a c e d t h e same d i f f i c u l t f a m i l y b a c k g r o u n d b u t went on t o l i v e successful testified, but lives, and (2) many i n d i v i d u a l s as the m i t i g a t i o n come f r o m b a d f a m i l y b a c k g r o u n d s do n o t commit c a p i t a l m u r d e r . trial c o u r t had evidence specialist before 27 (RTR C. 215.) Thus, t h e i t that called into question CR-06-2236 w h e t h e r t h e e v i d e n c e S t a n l e y p r e s e n t e d was i n f a c t m i t i g a t i n g . See, e.g., Thompson, s u p r a ; Davis, supra. S t a n l e y has n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t t h e t r i a l as t o t h i s court erred issue. V. Stanley there was influenced (RTR 287 argues "no that the t r i a l c r e d i b l e evidence court's that statement any o f t h e s e the commission of the crime [Stanley] C. 218) c o n f l i c t s w i t h T e n n a r d v. D r e t k e , (2004), a n d S m i t h v. T e x a s , 543 U.S. that factors committed" 542 U.S. 274, 37, 45 (2004). We disagree. In Tennard, the U n i t e d "threshold 'screening Court of Appeals that a States test'" applied f o r the F i f t h particular Supreme C o u r t a d d r e s s e d a by Circuit capital-sentencing the United to a claim scheme States alleging provided an inadequate v e h i c l e t o c o n s i d e r m i t i g a t i n g evidence under Penry v. L y n a u g h , 492 U.S. 302 (1989) Fifth Circuit's test, (a " P e n r y c l a i m " ) . the court i n i t i a l l y the particular e v i d e n c e was the e v i d e n c e was n o t " c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y would not review a Penry determined whether "constitutionally claim. 28 Under t h e relevant"; i f relevant," the court The U n i t e d States Supreme CR-06-2236 Court held that unconstitutional. 6 the Fifth Circuit's "screening test" was 6 Specifically, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t stated: "Despite paying l i p s e r v i c e to the p r i n c i p l e s g u i d i n g issuance of a [ c e r t i f i c a t e of a p p e a l a b i l i t y ] the F i f t h C i r c u i t ' s a n a l y s i s proceeded along a d i s t i n c t l y different track. Rather than examining t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s a n a l y s i s o f t h e Texas c o u r t d e c i s i o n , i t i n v o k e d i t s own r e s t r i c t i v e g l o s s on [ P e n r y v. L y n a u g h , 492 U.S. 302 (1989) ('Penry I ' ) ] : " ' I n r e v i e w i n g a P e n r y c l a i m , we must determine whether the m i t i g a t i n g evidence i n t r o d u c e d a t t r i a l was constitutionally r e l e v a n t and b e y o n d t h e e f f e c t i v e r e a c h o f the jury To be constitutionally r e l e v a n t , " t h e e v i d e n c e must show (1) a u n i q u e l y s e v e r e permanent handicap w i t h w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t was b u r d e n e d t h r o u g h no f a u l t o f h i s own, ... and (2) t h a t t h e criminal a c t was attributable to this s e v e r e permanent c o n d i t i o n . " ' [ T e n n a r d v. Cockrell, 284 F.3d 591, 595 (5th C i r . 2002)] ( q u o t i n g D a v i s v. S c o t t , 51 F.3d 457, 460-461 (C.A.5 1 9 9 5 ) ) . "This test for 'constitutional relevance,' c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e S t a t e a t o r a l a r g u m e n t as a threshold 'screening t e s t , ' ... appears to be a p p l i e d u n i f o r m l y i n the F i f t h C i r c u i t t o Penry c l a i m s . ... O n l y a f t e r t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t c e r t a i n m i t i g a t i n g evidence i s ' c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y relevant' w i l l i t c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h a t e v i d e n c e was w i t h i n '"the ' e f f e c t i v e r e a c h ' of the j u r [ y ] . " ' In T e n n a r d v. C o c k r e l l , [284 F.3d 591 ( 5 t h C i r . 2002),] the Fifth Circuit concluded that Tennard was ' p r e c l u d e d from e s t a b l i s h i n g a Penry c l a i m ' because h i s low IQ e v i d e n c e b o r e no n e x u s t o t h e c r i m e , and 29 CR-06-2236 In S t a n l e y ' s case, t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s statement t h a t there was "no c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t h a t any o f t h e s e f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c e d the commission conflict with sentencing evidence of the crime [Stanley] Tennard or Smith. order makes offered by clear h i s background, incarcerated. As d i s c u s s e d concluded that circumstances, this was not The t r i a l that Stanley, circumstances, committed" i s not i n court's i t considered including amended a l l his and h i s b e h a v i o r the family since being above, however, t h e t r i a l court evidence, mitigating under because the (1) particular Stanley's s i s t e r s f a c e d t h e same d i f f i c u l t f a m i l y b a c k g r o u n d b u t went on to l i v e s u c c e s s f u l l i v e s , and (2) as t h e m i t i g a t i o n s p e c i a l i s t so d i d n o t move on t o t h e q u e s t i o n . 284 F.3d, a t 597. 'effective reach' "The F i f t h C i r c u i t ' s t e s t h a s no f o u n d a t i o n i n the d e c i s i o n s of t h i s Court. N e i t h e r Penry I nor i t s progeny screened mitigating evidence for 'constitutional relevance' before considering whether the j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s comported w i t h the E i g h t h Amendment." 542 U.S. a t 283-84 ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . In Smith, the United States Supreme C o u r t r e j e c t e d a s i m i l a r "constitutional r e l e v a n c e " t e s t b e c a u s e i t " d i d n o t p r o v i d e t h e j u r y w i t h an adequate v e h i c l e f o r e x p r e s s i n g a 'reasoned moral response' t o a l l of the evidence relevant to the defendant's c u l p a b i l i t y . " 543 U.S. a t 46 ( q u o t i n g P e n r y v. J o h n s o n , 532 U.S. 782, 796 (2001)). 30 CR-06-2236 testified, many i n d i v i d u a l s come f r o m b a d f a m i l y b u t do n o t commit c a p i t a l m u r d e r . context (RTR C. 215.) i n mind--i.e., having already noted that Stanley had With determined f a c t s were n o t m i t i g a t i n g i n S t a n l e y ' s later backgrounds that that those case--the t r i a l court not o f f e r e d any "credible e v i d e n c e t h a t any o f t h e s e f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c e d t h e c o m m i s s i o n of t h e crime statement, Smith [Stanley] even committed." assuming i s correct, does Stanley's Thus, t h e t r i a l reading not i n d i c a t e that court's o f Tennard the t r i a l a p p l i e d a " r e l e v a n c e " t e s t i n c o n f l i c t w i t h Tennard and court or Smith. VI. In accordance with § 13A-5-53, address the p r o p r i e t y of Stanley's Stanley commission was of a convicted robbery A l a . Code death sentence. of murdering i n the f i r s t 1975, we Smith degree, during an the offense d e f i n e d as c a p i t a l b y § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975. The r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t S t a n l e y ' s s e n t e n c e was n o t i m p o s e d u n d e r the i n f l u e n c e of p a s s i o n , factor. As p r e j u d i c e , o r any o t h e r arbitrary See § 1 3 A - 5 - 5 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975. noted aggravating above, the circumstances trial court outweighed 31 the found one that the mitigating CR-06-2236 circumstance--the jury's advisory verdict. held that the t r i a l court's findings I n S t a n l e y I , we as t o t h e s t a t u t o r y aggravating circumstances and statutory mitigating circumstances were After reviewing t h e amended sentencing order proper. on return to remand and after fully c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a r g u m e n t s made b y t h e p a r t i e s i n t h e i r briefs on r e t u r n t o remand, we h o l d t h a t t h e t r i a l as to the nonstatutory proper which and a r e s u p p o r t e d assigned mitigating circumstances by t h e r e c o r d . "significant court's findings are also court, to weight" The t r i a l jury's the recommendation o f l i f e imprisonment w i t h o u t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f parole i n i t s weighing process, acted w i t h i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n overriding the jury's advisory v e r d i c t . Section Court to mitigating 13A-5-53(b)(2), weigh the A l a . Code aggravating circumstances circumstances independently p r o p r i e t y of Stanley's sentence Ala. 1975, r e q u i r e s of death. to and determine the the S e c t i o n 13A-5-48, Code 1975, p r o v i d e s : "The process described in Sections 13A-5-46(e)(2), 13A-5-46(e)(3) and Section 13A-5-47(e) of weighing the aggravating and m i t i g a t i n g circumstances t o determine the sentence s h a l l n o t be d e f i n e d t o mean a mere t a l l y i n g o f a g g r a v a t i n g and m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s f o r t h e 32 this CR-06-2236 purpose of n u m e r i c a l comparison. Instead, i t s h a l l be d e f i n e d t o mean a p r o c e s s by w h i c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s r e l e v a n t t o s e n t e n c e a r e m a r s h a l l e d and c o n s i d e r e d in an organized fashion for the purpose of d e t e r m i n i n g whether the proper sentence i n view of a l l t h e r e l e v a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n an i n d i v i d u a l c a s e i s l i f e imprisonment w i t h o u t p a r o l e or death." "The determination circumstances numerical of whether the outweigh the m i t i g a t i n g circumstances one, but instead involves the 456 So. 2d 105, 108-09 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . aggravating or i s not a gravity of Ex p a r t e a g g r a v a t i o n as compared t o t h e m i t i g a t i o n . " an aggravating the Clisby, " [ W ] h i l e the e x i s t e n c e of mitigating circumstance s u s c e p t i b l e to proof, the r e l a t i v e weight is a fact of each i s not; the process of weighing, u n l i k e f a c t s , i s not s u s c e p t i b l e to p r o o f by either (Ala. party." Crim. mitigating App. L a w h o r n v. 1990). circumstance aggravating circumstances to As S t a t e , 581 noted, So. 2d the t r i a l 1159, c o u r t gave the light the little weight in present in this case. "The be a t t a c h e d t o t h e a g g r a v a t i n g and t h e m i t i g a t i n g is strictly within authority." Smith App. We 2000). v. the discretion S t a t e , 908 agree w i t h the independent weighing So. trial of 2d 273, of weight evidence the sentencing 298 ( A l a . Crim. court's findings. of the a g g r a v a t i n g circumstances 33 1171 and An the CR-06-2236 mitigating circumstance indicates that death i s the proper sentence. As Court required must by § 13A-5-53(b)(3), determine disproportionate or whether excessive A l a . Code when The is disproportionate excessive imposed i n s i m i l a r defendant. See, C r i m . App. 2011), 101 So. 1954, 3d 247 Nov. 5, nor R e v i s v. cert. denied ( A l a . 2012); 2010] So. on return to C r i m . App. remand); State, (No. v. 101 So. S t a l l w o r t h v. S t a t e , App. 2001); R e e v e s v. 2 0 0 0 ) ; H a r d y v. S t a t e , State, 804 1110584, Aug. So. 2d 1100 695 So. 2d 70 (Ala. 2012), [Ms. CR-082010); v. State, 807 868 State, 62 So. So. 2009) So. 2d 1128 2d 18 3d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 34] (Ala. ( A l a . Crim. ( A l a . Crim. ( A l a . Crim. App. 1999); 2 0 0 0 ) ; Gaddy v. 1 9 9 5 ) ; B u s h v. 1 9 9 5 ) ; Payne v. S t a t e , [ S u b s t i t u t e d p. (opinion 553 ( A l a . C r i m . App. ( A l a . C r i m . App. ( A l a . C r i m . App. the 17, So. 2d 247 West v. S t a t e , 793 So. 2d 870 penalties 3d 247 2 0 0 8 ) ; Yeomans v. S t a t e , 898 So. 2d 878 2004); 698 the ( A l a . C r i m . App. App. State, to case ( A l a . C r i m . App. 3d Mills penalties b o t h t h e c r i m e and McMillan Y a n c e y v. S t a t e , 65 So. 3d 452 to sentence of death i n t h i s cases, considering e.g., was compared imposed i n s i m i l a r cases. neither this sentence Stanley's 1975, State, 683 So. CR-06-2236 2d 554 440 ( A l a . Crim. ( A l a . Crim. course App. App. 1995); Peoples 1986) v. S t a t e , 510 So. 2d ( a l l murder committed d u r i n g t h e of a robbery). F i n a l l y , t h i s Court p r e v i o u s l y p r e t e r m i t t e d a p l a i n - e r r o r review of Stanley's sentencing proceeding, c o u r t ' s r e t u r n t o o u r remand o r d e r . pending the Because the t r i a l trial court has c o m p l i e d w i t h t h i s C o u r t ' s d i r e c t i o n on remand as t o t h e sentencing o r d e r , we have now reviewed proceedings pursuant t o Rule Stanley's 45A, A l a . R. App. sentencing P. As r u l e r e q u i r e s , we have s e a r c h e d t h e e n t i r e p r o c e e d i n g s plain error affected or defect that any o f S t a n l e y ' s has or probably substantial has rights. We that f o r any adversely conclude t h a t t h e r e i s no p l a i n e r r o r i n t h e s e n t e n c i n g t h a t a d v e r s e l y affected Stanley's rights. Accordingly, sentence of death for the foregoing reasons, Stanley's i s due t o b e , and i s h e r e b y , a f f i r m e d . AFFIRMED AS TO SENTENCING. Windom, P . J . , and W e l c h , K e l l u m , and B u r k e , J J . , c o n c u r . [ S u b s t i t u t e d p. 35]

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.