John Lewis Thomas, Jr. v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/12/2013 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-11-1243 John Lewis Thomas, J r . v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Crenshaw C i r c u i t Court (CC-09-55;CC-09-56;CC-09-57;CC-09-58;CC-09-59;CC-09-60) BURKE, J u d g e . John Lewis Thomas, Jr., was c o n v i c t e d o f two c o u n t s o f m u r d e r made c a p i t a l b e c a u s e t h e m u r d e r s were c o m m i t t e d d u r i n g the course 40(a)(2), of a robbery A l a . Code i n the f i r s t 1975; one c o u n t degree, s e e § 13A-5- o f m u r d e r made capital CR-11-1243 b e c a u s e two o r more p e o p l e were k i l l e d by one a c t o r p u r s u a n t to one scheme o r A l a . Code 1975; 8-41, course of conduct, see § 13A-5-40(a)(10), two c o u n t s o f f i r s t - d e g r e e r o b b e r y , see § A l a . Code m u r d e r , see §§ 1975; and 13A-6-2 and one count of attempt to 13A- commit 13A-4-2, A l a . Code 1975. He was s e n t e n c e d t o c o n c u r r e n t terms o f l i f e imprisonment w i t h o u t the possibility of convictions and parole to 99 for each of the y e a r s ' imprisonment remaining convictions. This appeal capital-murder f o r each of the follows. B e c a u s e Thomas does n o t c h a l l e n g e t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e S t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e on a p p e a l , a d e t a i l e d r e c i t a t i o n o f t h e f a c t s is unnecessary. and Antonio The McNear evidence robbed Kelley's a f t e r n o o n o f A u g u s t 27, 2008. and killed Charles Kelley at t r i a l revealed that Grocery and Patricia Betty Kelley, grocery, after hearing investigate. to the store, some o f w h i c h the gunshots, she t h e owner o f Kelley ran to stated the s t r u c k her several house. 2 shots i n her were Kelley's that, store K e l l e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t , when she o p e n e d t h e Thomas f i r e d the B a r g i n e r e , who t o the s t o r e . next door on D u r i n g t h e r o b b e r y , Thomas s h o t employees of the s t o r e . lived store Thomas to door direction, CR-11-1243 F u r t h e r t e s t i m o n y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t Thomas a n d McNear t o o k a cash r e g i s t e r from the store and f l e d the scene. Police l a t e r a r r e s t e d b o t h men a n d q u e s t i o n e d them a b o u t t h e r o b b e r y . A subsequent pistol. s e a r c h o f Thomas's home r e v e a l e d Forensic recovered from C h a r l e s K e l l e y ' s h e a d , as w e l l as b u l l e t s r e c o v e r e d f r o m Betty K e l l e y ' s house, i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e b u l l e t s had been f i r e d from t h e gun f o u n d analysis of the b u l l e t a .38 c a l i b e r i n Thomas's home. Police also cash r e g i s t e r from K e l l e y ' s G r o c e r y recovered the a t the bottom of a w e l l n e a r Thomas's home. Steve Jackson t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t the time of the robbery, he was near Kelley's Grocery when he J a c k s o n s t a t e d t h a t he saw a man s t a n d i n g in the parking house. two gunshots. near a p i c k u p l o t of the store l o o k i n g toward B e t t y Jackson later identified the truck d r i v i n g on t h e d a y o f t h e s h o o t i n g parking heard l o t of K e l l e y ' s Thomas truck Kelley's had been as t h e t r u c k he saw i n t h e Grocery. Another witness, Gary S h i r l e y , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he saw a p i c k u p t r u c k s p e e d away f r o m the store. Shirley also identified t r u c k he saw l e a v i n g t h e s c e n e . Thomas's truck Thomas t o l d p o l i c e t h a t had n o t been i n s i d e K e l l e y ' s G r o c e r y i n o v e r a y e a r . 3 as t h e he However, CR-11-1243 his f i n g e r p r i n t s were d i s c o v e r e d s t o r e near P a t r i c i a B a r g i n e r e ' s on a meat c o o l e r i n s i d e t h e body. I. Thomas a r g u e s ballistic Richert, that the t r i a l a forensic scientist Kelley's head, as w e l l recovered that as admitting i n firearms the b u l l e t a bullet h a d been f i r e d f r o m Thomas's home. by of Kathy R i c h e r t . specializing testified B e t t y K e l l y ' s f r o n t porch, was erred e v i d e n c e b a s e d on t h e t e s t i m o n y toolmark i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Charles court and found i n recovered from f r o m t h e gun Richert stated that that p r o t o c o l a t t h e Alabama Department o f F o r e n s i c S c i e n c e s the i s to have a t l e a s t two f o r e n s i c s c i e n t i s t s p e r f o r m an a n a l y s i s on objects s u c h as t h e b u l l e t s i n t h e p r e s e n t case. A primary a n a l y s t t e s t - f i r e s t h e gun and t h e n compares t h a t b u l l e t t o a bullet that was recovered from a crime another f o r e n s i c s c i e n t i s t independently and compares analyst. order h i s or her r e s u l t s w i t h Both s c i e n t i s t s must r e a c h f o r t h e a n a l y s i s t o be v a l i d . Tammi S l i g h was the primary analyst 4 scene. Afterwards, examines the b u l l e t s those of the primary t h e same c o n c l u s i o n i n In the present while Richert was case, the CR-11-1243 secondary a n a l y s t . did not t e s t i f y S l i g h subsequently at the t r i a l . Thomas c o n t e n d s Richert to t e s t i f y that the t r i a l regarding argues t h a t the admission States c o u r t e r r e d by a l l o w i n g the b a l l i s t i c o f the evidence under t h e C o n f r o n t a t i o n Clause United took a j o b i n Texas and C o n s t i t u t i o n which that enjoy '[i]na l l the r i g h t a g a i n s t him.'" v. W a s h i n g t o n , 541 U.S. 36, 42 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . According c o n c l u s i o n s b e c a u s e , he s a y s , report State Additionally, should failed Thomas t o Thomas, a proper argues trial, the State trial court make a that chain he s a y s , t h e of custody. However, f o r a p p e l l a t e review. f i l e d a motion pretrial the b a l l i s t i c s because, n e i t h e r o f those arguments i s p r e s e r v e d Before regarding she was n o t an u n a v a i l a b l e n o t have b e e n a d m i t t e d t o prove ... Crawford s h o u l d have b e e n a l l o w e d t o c r o s s - e x a m i n e S l i g h witness. the violated his rights "provides t o be c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e w i t n e s s e s her He o f t h e S i x t h Amendment t o t h e c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s , the accused s h a l l he evidence. requesting determination a d m i s s i b i l i t y of the b a l l i s t i c evidence. of that the (C. 495.) A h e a r i n g was h e l d , d u r i n g w h i c h Thomas a r g u e d a g a i n s t t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of R i c h e r t ' s testimony. However, when R i c h e r t t e s t i f i e d a t 5 CR-11-1243 trial, Thomas elicited made testimony expertise, the only one objection. regarding Richert's After the State qualifications and f o l l o w i n g exchange took p l a c e : " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Y o u r H o n o r , a t t h i s t i m e we w o u l d l i k e t o have Ms. R i c h e r t r e c o g n i z e d as an e x p e r t witness i n the field of f i r e a r m s and toolmark identification. "[Defense Counsel]: No p r e v i o u s l y noted i n p r i o r (R2. 3366.) The objection, hearing." except as 1 A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t has held: " ' R e v i e w on a p p e a l i s r e s t r i c t e d t o q u e s t i o n s and i s s u e s p r o p e r l y and t i m e l y r a i s e d a t t r i a l . ' Newsome v. S t a t e , 570 So. 2d 703, 717 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1989) . 'An i s s u e r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on appeal i s not s u b j e c t to a p p e l l a t e review because i t has n o t b e e n p r o p e r l y p r e s e r v e d and presented.' P a t e v. S t a t e , 601 So. 2d 210, 213 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1992). '"[T]o p r e s e r v e an i s s u e f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w , i t must be p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t by a timely and specific motion setting out the s p e c i f i c grounds i n support t h e r e o f . " ' M c K i n n e y v. S t a t e , 654 So. 2d 95, 99 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1995) The r e c o r d on a p p e a l c o n t a i n s two s e t s o f t r a n s c r i p t s t h a t a r e s e p a r a t e l y numbered. The f i r s t s e t , d e n o t e d "R1," c o n t a i n s 538 p a g e s o f t r a n s c r i p t s f r o m Thomas's y o u t h f u l offender application hearing, arraignment, scheduling conference, an ex p a r t e h e a r i n g , p r e t r i a l m o t i o n s , and an A t k i n s v. V i r g i n i a , 536 U.S. 304 ( 2 0 0 2 ) , h e a r i n g . The first 100 p a g e s o f t h a t s e t a r e d o u b l e numbered w i t h p a g e s 1048-1147 o f t h e C l e r k ' s r e c o r d . The s e c o n d s e t , d e n o t e d "R2," contains various other pretrial hearings, i n c l u d i n g the hearing r e g a r d i n g K a t h y R i c h e r t ' s t e s t i m o n y , as w e l l as t h e t r i a l and the s e n t e n c i n g proceedings. 1 6 CR-11-1243 (citation omitted). 'The s t a t e m e n t o f s p e c i f i c grounds of objection waives a l l grounds not s p e c i f i e d , a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i l l n o t be p u t i n e r r o r on g r o u n d s n o t a s s i g n e d a t t r i a l . ' Ex p a r t e F r i t h , 526 So. 2d 880, 882 ( A l a . 1987) . 'The purpose of r e q u i r i n g a s p e c i f i c objection to p r e s e r v e an i s s u e f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w i s t o p u t t h e t r i a l j u d g e on n o t i c e o f t h e a l l e g e d e r r o r , g i v i n g an o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o r r e c t i t b e f o r e t h e c a s e i s submitted to the j u r y . ' Ex p a r t e Works, 640 So. 2d 1056, 1058 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . " Ex parte Coulliette, 857 So. 2d 793, 794-95 ( A l a . 2003) . Furthermore, "'"An a p p e l l a n t who s u f f e r s an a d v e r s e r u l i n g on a motion t o exclude evidence, made i n limine, p r e s e r v e s t h i s adverse r u l i n g f o r post-judgment and appellate review only i f he objects to the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e p r o f f e r e d e v i d e n c e and a s s i g n s s p e c i f i c grounds t h e r e f o r a t t h e time o f t h e t r i a l , u n l e s s he has o b t a i n e d t h e e x p r e s s a c q u i e s c e n c e o f the trial court that subsequent objection to evidence when i t i s proffered at t r i a l and assignment o f grounds t h e r e f o r a r e not n e c e s s a r y . " ' " Ex parte Baldwin So. Jackson, 33 So. 3d 1279, 1283 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) , quoting C n t y . E l e c . M e m b e r s h i p C o r p . v. C i t y o f F a i r h o p e , 2d 448, 454 ( A l a . 2008), quoting i n turn 99 9 Owens-Corning F i b e r g l a s s C o r p . v . James, 646 So. 2d 669, 673 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . At the above-mentioned p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g , the t r i a l r u l e d i n f a v o r o f t h e S t a t e and h e l d t h a t R i c h e r t ' s did not violate the Confrontation Clause. However, Thomas d i d n o t o b t a i n t h e " e x p r e s s 7 court testimony (R2. 485.) acquiescence" of CR-11-1243 the trial court unnecessary. State's that subsequent o b j e c t i o n at t r i a l We a l s o n o t e t h a t t h e h e a r i n g motion admissibility for a pretrial of the b a l l i s t i c w o u l d be was b a s e d on t h e determination evidence, of the not a motion to e x c l u d e t h e e v i d e n c e f i l e d b y Thomas. During Richert's testimony at t r i a l , Thomas o b j e c t e d b u t f a i l e d t o s p e c i f y the grounds f o r the o b j e c t i o n . A l t h o u g h he referenced he d i d n o t an o b j e c t i o n s p e c i f y which hearing context he was r e f e r r i n g t o . A d d i t i o n a l l y , the o f t h e o b j e c t i o n s u g g e s t s t h a t Thomas was o b j e c t i n g t o Richert's court from a " p r i o r h e a r i n g , " qualification was not Accordingly, Richert's put as an e x p e r t . on notice Therefore, of the Thomas's argument r e g a r d i n g the t r i a l alleged error. the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of testimony i s not preserved f o r appellate review. II. Next, admitting discovered Thomas a cash asserts r e g i s t e r from b o t t o m o f a w e l l on p r o p e r t y Thomas's f a m i l y . the t r i a l r e g i s t e r i n t o evidence. the cash testimony revealed that that court As n o t e d , Kelley's Grocery n e a r Thomas's h o u s e . the property erred by police at the Subsequent h a d once b e e n owned b y D u r i n g Thomas's i n t e r r o g a t i o n , he t o l d t h e 8 CR-11-1243 p o l i c e a b o u t t h e c a s h r e g i s t e r a n d gave them d i r e c t i o n s t o t h e property on w h i c h i t was found. According t o Thomas, t h e S t a t e c o n c e d e d t h a t he h a d i n v o k e d h i s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l giving that statement result of that and t h a t statement would any e v i d e n c e be before obtained inadmissable at as a trial. Thomas a s s e r t s t h a t t h e S t a t e " s t i p u l a t e d a n d a g r e e d t h a t t h e c a s h r e g i s t e r w o u l d s q u a r e l y be ' f r u i t o f t h e p o i s o n o u s and w o u l d be i n a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t Thomas." b r i e f , a t 41.) that tree' (Thomas's Thomas c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e S t a t e l a t e r b r e a c h e d agreement. In h i s b r i e f regarding the e n f o r c e a b i l i t y agreements. record he Thomas c i t e s and b i n d i n g extensive nature caselaw of in-court However, he does n o t p r o v i d e any c i t a t i o n s t o t h e indicating purported record on a p p e a l , where i n the record s t i p u l a t i o n was e n t e r e d provides (Thomas's b r i e f , into. i s to a p r e t r i a l at 40), c i t i n g m o t i o n does n o t r e f e r e n c e C. i t shows that the The o n l y c i t e t o t h e motion 574-75. to suppress. However, that any s t i p u l a t i o n s b y t h e S t a t e . This C o u r t has h e l d : " R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. P., r e q u i r e s t h a t an argument contain 'the contentions of the appellant/petitioner with respect to the issues p r e s e n t e d , and t h e reasons t h e r e f o r , w i t h c i t a t i o n s 9 CR-11-1243 t o t h e c a s e s , s t a t u t e s , o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s , and p a r t s of the record relied on.' 'Recitation of a l l e g a t i o n s w i t h o u t c i t a t i o n t o any l e g a l a u t h o r i t y and w i t h o u t a d e q u a t e r e c i t a t i o n o f t h e f a c t s r e l i e d upon has b e e n deemed a w a i v e r o f t h e a r g u m e n t s listed.' Hamm v. S t a t e , 913 So. 2d 460, 486 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . " Egbuonu v. S t a t e , 993 So. 2d 35, 38-39 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2007) . Because record Thomas d i d n o t p r o v i d e any citations to the i n d i c a t i n g where t h e p u r p o r t e d s t i p u l a t i o n t o o k p l a c e , we t h a t he f a i l e d to adequately b r i e f t h i s argument as by R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P. t o be find required A c c o r d i n g l y , i t i s deemed waived. Out o f an abundance o f c a u t i o n , t h i s Court searched the r e c o r d and d i s c o v e r e d t h e f o l l o w i n g e x c h a n g e b e t w e e n t h e S t a t e and d e f e n s e c o u n s e l d u r i n g a h e a r i n g on a m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s : " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Now, that being said, I reviewed [Thomas's] s t a t e m e n t s . E v e r y b o d y i n o u r o f f i c e has r e v i e w e d t h e s t a t e m e n t s . We have t h o u g h t a b o u t i t , discussed i t at great length. And we b e l i e v e t h a t John Thomas, J r . i n v o k e d h i s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l and t h a t i t was m i s u n d e r s t o o d by l a w e n f o r c e m e n t , and t h e y c o n t i n u e d [ t o ] q u e s t i o n him. "But the State is imposing their own s e l f - r e s t r i c t i o n b a s e d on what we b e l i e v e was t h e [invocation] of h i s r i g h t s . And t o be s p e c i f i c , i t ' s a t m i n u t e 22, 38 s e c o n d s i n S t a t e m e n t 2 where the defendant s a i d , I j u s t need a l a w y e r . To us -¬ and l i k e I s a i d , we've r e s e a r c h e d i t and t h o u g h t a b o u t i t and have p u t a l o t o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t o 10 CR-11-1243 i t , and we b e l i e v e t h a t a t t h a t p o i n t he i n v o k e d h i s r i g h t to counsel. "So t h e S t a t e p l a n s t o o n l y go i n t o t h e f i r s t s t a t e m e n t t h a t was taken w i t h Agent Rodgers and H e a t h Truman and t h a t p a r t o f t h e s e c o n d s t a t e m e n t t h a t was t a k e n w i t h A g e n t J o h n n y Senn up u n t i l t h a t point. And we w i l l p r o c e e d no f u r t h e r u n l e s s the d e f e n s e opens t h e d o o r , i f t h a t h a p p e n s . " " " [ D e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] : I d o n ' t know i f J o h n n y r e m i n d e d him o f h i s r i g h t s i n t h e -- i n t h e s e c o n d s t a t e m e n t . B u t he s a i d , I j u s t n e e d a l a w y e r . And anything f r o m t h e r e t h r o u g h o u t t h e -- any s t a t e m e n t made. "[Prosecutor]: Yes, "[Defense c o u n s e l ] : "[Prosecutor]: I'm with you. We're -- we're good. Yeah, we're good. " [ D e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] : You know, as f a r as s t a t e m e n t s and everything go, we w o u l d have t h e issue of i n d u c e m e n t s . And t h e n , o f c o u r s e , we w o u l d have t h e i s s u e o f a n y t h i n g t h a t q u a l i f i e s as f r u i t o f t h e p o i s o n [ o u s ] t r e e as a r e s u l t o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s . "[Prosecutor]: Yes. " . . . " [ D e f e n s e c o u n s e l ] : Judge -- and I b e l i e v e -- and I was n o t a p a r t y t o t h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n . There would be an i s s u e a b o u t t h e -- t h e c a s h r e g i s t e r , t h a t we w o u l d a r g u e i t w o u l d be t h e f r u i t o f t h e p o i s o n o u s t r e e w h i c h was o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e s t a t e m e n t o f Mr. Thomas. And I t h i n k t h a t -- I d o n ' t want t o s p e a k s i n c e I wasn't p a r t of t h a t , but the S t a t e agrees t h a t t h e -- 11 CR-11-1243 " [ P r o s e c u t o r ] : Y o u r Honor, t h a t -- t h e S t a t e -- I g u e s s I s h o u l d have b e e n c l e a r e r . Not o n l y a r e we s a y i n g t h a t e v e r y t h i n g a f t e r him s a y i n g , I j u s t want a l a w y e r , as f a r as s t a t e m e n t s i s e x c l u d e d . Any e v i d e n c e t h a t came s o l e l y f r o m , s u c h as t h e c a s h r e g i s t e r , we a r e a l s o s a y i n g i s e x c l u d e d . " (R. 3059-79.) Assuming t h a t r e f e r s t o i n h i s b r i e f , we this i s the stipulation Thomas any b r e a c h e d by In the above-quoted exchange, the p r o s e c u t o r the do n o t f i n d t h a t i t was agreed that State. o f Thomas's s t a t e m e n t s made a f t e r he i n v o k e d counsel "that w o u l d be e x c l u d e d . came s o l e l y She a l s o s t a t e d t h a t any from" those s t a t e m e n t s , r e g i s t e r , " w o u l d a l s o be e x c l u d e d . Thus, the State would introduce did the foreclose the cash register based evidence the cash on something i t other introduced the cash r e g i s t e r under the d o c t r i n e of i n e v i t a b l e discovery. from officers Thomas's testified accomplice, State p o s s i b i l i t y that subsequently Police The "such as to (R. 3 0 7 9 ) ( e m p h a s i s added.) not t h a n Thomas's s t a t e m e n t s . his right that they a l s o gained Antonio McNear, independently l e d them t o t h e c a s h r e g i s t e r . State b r e a c h i t s a g r e e m e n t and the d i d not contrary i s without merit. III. 12 that information would have Accordingly, Thomas's argument the to CR-11-1243 Next, Thomas argued that the t r i a l court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by r e f u s i n g t o a l l o w him t o cross-examine officers police about a l l e g e d i n c o n s i s t e n t or u n t r u t h f u l statements t h e y made i n p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g s . Before t r i a l , a t t o r n e y were a l l o w e d the crime a s s i s t a defense deputies who to v i s i t Thomas a n d h i s scene i n order t o e x p e r t w i t h measurements o f t h e s t o r e . accompanied they Thomas routinely testified hearing that wore video uniforms t h a t would r e c o r d t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s . at a cameras The pretrial on their Some o f o r a l l t h e d e p u t i e s who a c c o m p a n i e d Thomas i n s i d e t h e s t o r e l e f t t h e cameras r u n n i n g and the expert. w h i l e defense At a counsel pretrial conferred with hearing Thomas regarding those r e c o r d i n g s , C h i e f D e p u t y James L e C r o y o f t h e Crenshaw C o u n t y Sheriff's Department, testified that, although he has a s t a n d i n g o r d e r t h a t d e p u t i e s a r e t o u s e t h e i r cameras any t i m e they respond they used store. to a call, he was n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e cameras w h i l e accompanying Thomas aware inside the However, once he was made aware o f t h e r e c o r d i n g s , he made a c o p y o f t h e v i d e o a n d t u r n e d i t o v e r t o d e f e n s e and that the d i s t r i c t attorney's office. counsel 2 The record reveals that t h e Alabama Bureau of Investigation conducted an i n v e s t i g a t i o n regarding the 2 13 CR-11-1243 At trial, officers Thomas regarding untruthful what statements regarding sought he they to cross-examine described made t h e use of t h e v i d e o at i t was e r r o r question f o r the t r i a l the o f f i c e r s about t h e i r of prejudicial abuse, i t i s not r e v i e w a b l e the claims 920, 953 generally to b e c a u s e i t w e i g h e d on and e x t e n t o f trial court, and, i n the absence on a p p e a l . ' " Reynolds , App. 2 0 1 0 ) , q u o t i n g G o b b l e v. S t a t e , 104 So. ( A l a . Crim. testimony of of So. 3d. App. 2 0 1 0 ) . i s of major However, importance "'[w]here a trial i s required court has a to allow proof narrow a and i s s t r o n g l y a d v e r s e t o t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t whom he h a s t e s t i f i e d , discretion him t o According [Ms. CR-07-0443, O c t o b e r 1, 2010] (Ala. Crim. witness' Thomas o f n e c e s s i t y , i s a m a t t e r w i t h i n t h e sound discretion 3d court credibility. cross-examination, State, hearing not t o allow T h i s C o u r t has h e l d t h a t " ' [ t ] h e l a t i t u d e v. or trial statements. Thomas, s u c h q u e s t i o n i n g was n e c e s s a r y the o f f i c e r s ' The On a p p e a l , court police inconsistent the p r e t r i a l cameras. r e f u s e d t o a l l o w such q u e s t i o n i n g . that as the the usual range, and i t o f any i m p o r t a n t fact r e c o r d i n g s a n d c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e was no m i s c o n d u c t on t h e p a r t of the s h e r i f f ' s department. 14 CR-11-1243 indicating bias S t a t e , 331 So. In his testimony of the 2d 828, brief, was witness.'" 830 enforcement testimony." claims that "[n]o any a other." statements claims is deputy with testimony least enforcement o f f i c e r s had (Thomas's b r i e f , one, the same as However, officers' details, a testimony, does n o t f a l s e testimony. i s not supported officers' of while inconsistent a l l , of the record somewhat about the the law reveals conflicting matter." that in the minor s u g g e s t t h a t t h e y were d e l i b e r a t e l y g i v i n g Thomas's c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t h e by the statements purpose at t r i a l , i n no way review under oath inference 45.) at lied further t h a t "the o n l y i f not law He was p e r s o n c o u l d have drawn f r o m t h e at v. LeCroy's subsequent (Thomas's b r i e f , a t 45.) single officer's that Proctor 1976). that inconsistent Thomas's c o n c l u s i o n was fair-minded (quoting ( A l a . C r i m . App. Thomas "wholly Id. record. would Any have served regarding the any relevant and t h e c o u r t ' s e x c l u s i o n o f t h a t testimony p r e j u d i c e d Thomas. not testimony testimony A c c o r d i n g l y , the 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 by r e f u s i n g t o a l l o w Thomas t o c r o s s examine the o f f i c e r s regarding 15 their pretrial testimony. CR-11-1243 IV. Finally, Thomas argues that, d e t e r m i n e d t h a t he was m e n t a l l y for the death penalty, sentence him t o l i f e parole. because the t r i a l r e t a r d e d and thus i t d i d n o t have imprisonment without , 132 S . C t . 2455 constitutionality relates to regarding of (2012), Alabama's juveniles, r e t a r d e d as w e l l . jurisdiction to the p o s s i b i l i t y of logically Although which capital extends Thomas p r e s e n t e d the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y dealt to was n o t p r e s e n t e d preserved to the t r i a l f o r appellate the as i t mentally s e v e r a l arguments of the death without the p o s s i b i l i t y of parole. with the sentencing r a i s e d no s u c h a r g u m e n t s a b o u t a s e n t e n c e o f l i f e penalty, A c c o r d i n g l y , t h i s argument c o u r t and i s c o n s e q u e n t l y review. excessiveness he imprisonment See Ex p a r t e not Coulliette, s e e a l s o J o l l y v. S t a t e , 858 So. 2d 305, 316-17 C r i m . App. 2 0 0 2 ) ( h o l d i n g the ineligible Thomas a r g u e s t h a t t h e h o l d i n g i n M i l l e r v. A l a b a m a , U.S. supra; court (Ala. t h a t an E i g h t h Amendment c h a l l e n g e t o and d i s p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y subject to the rules of preservation). V. 16 of a sentence i s CR-11-1243 In i t s b r i e f , for t h e S t a t e c l a i m s t h a t Thomas's c o n v i c t i o n s f i r s t - d e g r e e robbery violate the double-jeopardy clause b e c a u s e t h e r o b b e r i e s were t h e same r o b b e r i e s u n d e r l y i n g two of h i s c a p i t a l - m u r d e r raise out this convictions. Although argument a t t r i a l the that o r on a p p e a l , d i d not jurisdiction trial to court adjudicate Thomas Thomas d i d n o t the State have guilty points subject-matter of the robbery c h a r g e s a n d t h a t s u c h a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l c l a i m may be r a i s e d a t any t i m e . App. I n Deas v. S t a t e , 844 So. 2d 1286, 1289 ( A l a . C r i m . 2 0 0 2 ) , q u o t i n g B o r d e n v. S t a t e , 711 So. 2d 498, 503 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , this Court faced a similar h e l d t h a t " t h i s type o f double jeopardy the trial issues trial court's that affect jurisdiction the subject violation t o render matter c o u r t may be r a i s e d a t any t i m e . " address t h i s situation and 'implicates a judgment,' jurisdiction and of the A c c o r d i n g l y , we may i s s u e sua sponte. I n L e w i s v. S t a t e , 57 So. 3d 807 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 9 ) , t h e a p p e l l a n t was c o n v i c t e d o f m u r d e r 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 of a kidnapping d e g r e e as w e l l as f i r s t - d e g r e e k i d n a p p i n g victim. This Court held that 17 i n the f i r s t i n v o l v i n g t h e same "'[a] defendant cannot be CR-11-1243 c o n v i c t e d o f b o t h a c a p i t a l o f f e n s e and a l e s s e r o f f e n s e is i n c l u d e d i n the c a p i t a l charge.'" 3d a t 819, q u o t i n g Adams v. S t a t e , (Ala. Crim. App. 2 0 0 3 ) . that L e w i s v . S t a t e , 57 So. 955 So. 2d 1037, 1098-99 Furthermore, t h i s Court held: " ' " ' W h i l e t h e a p p e l l a n t was p r o p e r l y c h a r g e d w i t h t h e two c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s , s e e B o r d e n [ v. S t a t e , 711 So. 2d 498, 503-04, n. 3 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) ] , and b o t h o f f e n s e s were p r o p e r l y s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y , t h e p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t d o u b l e j e o p a r d y was v i o l a t e d when t h e a p p e l l a n t was c o n v i c t e d o f t h e c a p i t a l o f f e n s e o f murder d u r i n g t h e course o f a k i d n a p p i n g under Count I o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t and a l s o was c o n v i c t e d o f t h e l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e o f i n t e n t i o n a l murder under Count I I o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t , b e c a u s e t h e "same m u r d e r was an e l e m e n t o f t h e capital offense and the intentional murder conviction." B o r d e n , 711 So. 2d a t 503. See a l s o C o r a l v. S t a t e , 628 So. 2d 954, 958 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 9 2 ) , a f f ' d , 628 So. 2d 1004 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 511 U.S. 1012, 114 S . C t . 1387, 128 L.Ed.2d 61 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n o f the l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e o f i n t e n t i o n a l murder under a count a l l e g i n g the c a p i t a l offense of m u r d e r - r o b b e r y and h i s c o n v i c t i o n o f t h e c a p i t a l offense of murder-burglary v i o l a t e d the p r i n c i p l e s o f d o u b l e j e o p a r d y where t h e same m u r d e r was an element of both c o n v i c t i o n s ) . ' " ' " 57 So. 3d a t 819, q u o t i n g M a n g i o n e v. S t a t e , 740 So. 2d 444, 449 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1 9 9 8 ) . In t h e p r e s e n t degree robbery (C. 46, 48.) case, Thomas was i n d i c t e d f o r the f i r s t - o f b o t h C h a r l e s K e l l e y and P a t r i c i a Two o f Thomas's 18 capital-murder Barginere. indictments CR-11-1243 c h a r g e d him w i t h i n t e n t i o n a l l y m u r d e r i n g K e l l e y and during the t h e c o u r s e o f t h e same r o b b e r i e s . appellant offenses i n Lewis, -- i n t h i s Thomas was (C. 49, 50.) convicted violate For Thomas's convictions the p r o h i b i t i o n therefore of Like lesser c a s e , two c o u n t s o f f i r s t - d e g r e e r o b b e r y -- t h a t were a l s o e l e m e n t s o f h i s c a p i t a l - m u r d e r Accordingly, Barginere against convictions. for first-degree double jeopardy robbery a n d must be v a c a t e d . the foregoing reasons, Thomas's capital-murder c o n v i c t i o n s as w e l l as h i s c o n v i c t i o n f o r a t t e m p t e d m u r d e r a r e affirmed. However, t h i s instructions convictions that the case trial i s due t o be court f o r f i r s t - d e g r e e robbery. set remanded aside The t r i a l with Thomas's court shall t a k e a l l n e c e s s a r y a c t i o n t o s e e t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c l e r k makes due return to this court at the e a r l i e s t w i t h i n 42 d a y s a f t e r t h e r e l e a s e of t h i s possible time and opinion. AFFIRMED AS TO CAPITAL-MURDER CONVICTIONS AND ATTEMPTED- MURDER CONVICTION; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS AS TO ROBBERY CONVICTIONS. Windom, P . J . , and W e l c h , K e l l u m , and J o i n e r , J J . , c o n c u r . 19

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.