Robert S. Lloyd v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/04/2013 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, 2012-2013 CR-12-0748 Robert S. L l o y d v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from B u t l e r C i r c u i t Court (CC-03-17.62 and CC-03-51.62) KELLUM, J u d g e . Robert S. Lloyd appeals the c i r c u i t court's summary d i s m i s s a l o f what he s t y l e d as a " M o t i o n / R e q u e s t f o r F o r e n s i c D.N.A. T e s t i n g . " (C. 7.) CR-12-0748 I n December 2 0 0 6 , L l o y d was c o n v i c t e d o f t h e f i r s t - d e g r e e r a p e a n d f i r s t - d e g r e e sodomy o f P.P., who was 10 y e a r s o l d a t the time o f the crimes. The t r i a l c o u r t J a n u a r y 2007 t o 20 y e a r s ' the sentences Lloyd's imprisonment f o r each c o n v i c t i o n , to run consecutively. This CR-06-0985) Court 2008. 19 So. 3d 261 issued ( A l a . Crim. affirmed unpublished L l o y d v . S t a t e , (No. App. 2007) (table) . a c e r t i f i c a t e o f j u d g m e n t on J a n u a r y 1 3, I n F e b r u a r y 2008, L l o y d f i l e d a R u l e 32, A l a . R. C r i m . P., p e t i t i o n circuit and Court c o n v i c t i o n s a n d s e n t e n c e s on a p p e a l i n an memorandum i s s u e d on December 14, 2007. This sentenced Lloyd i n this c h a l l e n g i n g h i s c o n v i c t i o n s and s e n t e n c e s . court summarily dismissed Court affirmed that the p e t i t i o n dismissal memorandum i s s u e d on J a n u a r y 27, 2012. i n an The i n May 2 0 1 1 , unpublished L l o y d v. S t a t e , (No. CR-10-1365, J a n u a r y 27, 2012) ___ So. 3d ___ ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2012) (table). filed a s e c o n d R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n petition was circuit court This Court's records still pending also indicate that Lloyd i n May 2010, w h i l e h i s f i r s t i n the c i r c u i t a l s o summarily dismissed court, that p e t i t i o n and t h e i n May T h i s C o u r t may t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f i t s own r e c o r d s , and we do so i n t h i s c a s e . See N e t t l e s v. S t a t e , 731 So. 2d 626, 629 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) , a n d H u l l v. S t a t e , 607 So. 2d 369, 371 n.1 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) . 1 2 CR-12-0748 2011. Lloyd d i d not appeal the dismissal o f h i s second petition. On May 9, 2 0 1 2 , L l o y d f i l e d h i s m o t i o n f o r DNA t e s t i n g . In h i s motion, Lloyd requested P.P. be t e s t e d taken f o r DNA. at the Stable delivered t h a t t h e r a p e k i t p e r f o r m e d on He a l l e g e d t h a t Hospital t o t h e Alabama t h e r a p e k i t was i n Greenville, Department that of Forensic ("DFS"), a n d t h a t DFS " w o u l d have r e c o r d s him Sciences to v e r i f y that the 'rape k i t ' was d e l i v e r e d a n d t h e s a m p l e s a r e s t i l l (C. 8.) i t was on f i l e . " L l o y d a l s o a l l e g e d t h a t t h e "main e v i d e n c e " at t r i a l was t h e t e s t i m o n y described as " c o n f u s e d " testimony from t h r e e w i t n e s s o f P.P., and " f a l s e , " a l l e g e d r a p e a n d sodomy. his m o t i o n t h a t he n e v e r c o n f e s s e d t e s t e d f o r DNA. (C. 8.) of the crimes, DNA s a m p l e f o r t e s t i n g , whose t e s t i m o n y as w e l l Lloyd as " h e a r s a y " i n whom P.P. h a d c o n f i d e d the a c t u a l l y innocent against about Lloyd also alleged i n t o the crimes, t h a t he was t h a t he h a d n e v e r p r o v i d e d a and t h a t t h e rape k i t h a d n e v e r been 2 L l o y d a l s o made a r g u m e n t s i n h i s m o t i o n a b o u t h i s " m e n t a l i l l n e s s " and a l l e g e d t h a t " p e r j u r e d t e s t i m o n y " had been used at h i s t r i a l . (C. 7.) However, i t does n o t a p p e a r t h a t L l o y d i n t e n d e d t h e s e a r g u m e n t s t o be s e p a r a t e c l a i m s f o r r e l i e f a n d , i n a n y e v e n t , L l o y d does n o t p u r s u e them on a p p e a l . See, e.g., B r o w n l e e v . S t a t e , 666 So. 2 d 91, 93 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 3 CR-12-0748 On June 20, 2012, the stating that i t was testing as a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n going circuit to treat a response On to Lloyd's p e t i t i o n , 3, 2012, for DNA relief and the State a r g u i n g , among o t h e r i t f a i l e d to s a t i s f y requirements f o r newly d i s c o v e r e d m a t e r i a l f a c t s 32.1(e). i n Rule S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e S t a t e a r g u e d t h a t L l o y d knew, a t time of t r i a l , testing order t e s t i n g was p r e c l u d e d by R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( b ) and by R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( c ) b e c a u s e the an Lloyd's motion August t h i n g s , t h a t L l o y d ' s r e q u e s t f o r DNA the issued for postconviction ordered the S t a t e t o respond. filed court t h a t he h a d n o t p r o v i d e d a DNA sample f o r and he knew t h a t t h e r a p e k i t h a d n o t b e e n p r e s e n t e d as e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t him. On September 13, 2012, "answer" to the Lloyd f i l e d S t a t e ' s response, but what he s t y l e d which o b j e c t i o n t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s June 20, 2012, t h a t i t would treat h i s motion f o r DNA petition. L l o y d a r g u e d t h a t i t was as 32 a motion Rule petition pursuant claimed, 1995) ("We brief."). to § because, he testing was as an really an order stating as a R u l e e r r o r to t r e a t h i s motion said, 15-18-200, A l a . Code he had 1975, filed which, "has b e e n m o d i f i e d by t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t will not review issues 4 32 not listed and argued his he and in CR-12-0748 is not limited to relied on 2011), January v. State, 21, Lloyd's objection, 2013, 77 inmates." (C. 66.) So. ( A l a . Crim. the 3d 174 Lloyd t o s u p p o r t h i s argument. On Searcy 'DEATH ROW' State filed a App. response to a r g u i n g t h a t § 15-18-200, A l a . Code 1975, a p p l i e d only to defendants c o n v i c t e d o f c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s , that S e a r c y , s u p r a , d i d n o t m o d i f y § 15-18-200, and t h a t t h e p r o p e r avenue f o r defendants r e q u e s t DNA testing a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n On J a n u a r y setting out c o n v i c t e d of n o n c a p i t a l i n the p o s t c o n v i c t i o n context i s to for postconviction 22, 2013, t h e c i r c u i t the offenses to procedural history file relief. c o u r t i s s u e d an of the case order and then stating: " T r e a t i n g [ L l o y d ' s ] R e q u e s t as a M o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code § 15-18-200, t h e C o u r t f i n d s that [ L l o y d ] i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f and t h e M o t i o n i s due t o be DENIED. "However, i f [ L l o y d ] i s p u r s u i n g h i s r e q u e s t as a P e t i t i o n f o r R e l i e f from C o n v i c t i o n o r Sentence, t h i s i s a s u c c e s s i v e P e t i t i o n and i s p r e c l u d e d b y Rule 32.2(b), Rule 32.2(a)(3), Rule 32.2(a)(5), Rule 3 2 . 2 ( c ) , and R u l e 3 2 . 6 ( b ) , and i s h e r e b y DISMISSED." (C. 72-73. C a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n original.) 5 This appeal followed. CR-12-0748 I. On appeal, objection to the his request 200 and erred not Lloyd appears circuit f o r DNA t e s t i n g was a Rule 32 t h a t i t d i d so. Section argue, court's We as J u n e 20, he did 2012, in order, his that a m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o § 15-18¬ petition i n t r e a t i n g h i s motion extent to as and that a Rule the 32 circuit petition, court to the disagree. 15-18-200(a) p r o v i d e s , i n relevant part: "An i n d i v i d u a l c o n v i c t e d o f a c a p i t a l o f f e n s e who i s s e r v i n g a t e r m o f i m p r i s o n m e n t o r a w a i t i n g e x e c u t i o n of a sentence of death, through w r i t t e n motion to the circuit court that entered the j u d g m e n t o f s e n t e n c e , may a p p l y f o r t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f f o r e n s i c d e o x y r i b o n u c l e i c a c i d (DNA) t e s t i n g on s p e c i f i c e v i d e n c e , i f t h a t e v i d e n c e was s e c u r e d i n r e l a t i o n to the i n v e s t i g a t i o n or p r o s e c u t i o n t h a t r e s u l t e d i n the c o n v i c t i o n of the a p p l i c a n t , i s s t i l l a v a i l a b l e f o r t e s t i n g as o f t h e d a t e o f t h e m o t i o n , f o r e n s i c DNA t e s t i n g was n o t p e r f o r m e d on t h e c a s e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e i n i t i a l t r i a l , and t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e f o r e n s i c DNA t e s t i n g , on i t s f a c e , would demonstrate the c o n v i c t e d i n d i v i d u a l ' s f a c t u a l innocence of the o f f e n s e c o n v i c t e d . " (Emphasis added.) limits The p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f § 15-18-200 e x p r e s s l y postconviction requests for DNA t e s t i n g under s t a t u t e to those i n d i v i d u a l s c o n v i c t e d of c a p i t a l In that his objection to the circuit i t w o u l d t r e a t h i s m o t i o n as 6 court's a R u l e 32 that offenses. order stating petition, Lloyd CR-12-0748 relied on 2011), Searcy for "modified" limited was v. the by State, 77 proposition t h e Alabama So. that of rape § Supreme t o "death-row" inmates. convicted 3d 174 and ( A l a . Crim. 15-18-200 Court and was According sodomy and App. had been no longer to Lloyd, Searcy was serving a life s e n t e n c e and was p e r m i t t e d t o f i l e a p o s t c o n v i c t i o n m o t i o n f o r DNA testing pursuant to § 15-18-200. r e l i a n c e on S e a r c y i s m i s p l a c e d . from t h i s Court, alleged. capital However, Lloyd's F i r s t , S e a r c y was an o p i n i o n n o t f r o m t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t as L l o y d M o s t i m p o r t a n t l y , h o w e v e r , S e a r c y "was c o n v i c t e d o f murder f o r murdering Rory Lynn K i r k l a n d d u r i n g the c o u r s e o f a b u r g l a r y , " n o t o f r a p e and sodomy as L l o y d a r g u e d . S e a r c y , 77 So. 3d a t 175. Searcy limiting d i d not modify i t solely to Therefore, the plain t h i s Court's opinion i n language individuals in § convicted of 15-18-200 a capital offense. Lloyd, having of a c a p i t a l individuals 18-200. been c o n v i c t e d offense, i s c l e a r l y not w i t h i n the category permitted to request Additionally, o f r a p e and sodomy a n d n o t of DNA t e s t i n g p u r s u a n t t o § 15¬ t h e r e i s no s p e c i f i c s t a t u t e p r o v i d i n g an avenue f o r an i n d i v i d u a l convicted of a n o n c a p i t a l 7 offense CR-12-0748 t o s e e k DNA testing i n the p o s t c o n v i c t i o n c o n t e x t . argued to the c i r c u i t 32 i s the capital proper c o u r t , and a r g u e s avenue Before the testing. enactment of § Rule c o n v i c t e d of non¬ We agree. 15-18-200, r e c o g n i z e d t h a t a p o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e q u e s t f o r DNA be p r e s e n t e d i n a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n I n D o w d e l l v. S t a t e , B a r r y Dowdell 854 So. f i l e d a Rule this years' imprisonment. that he was entitled 32 p e t i t i o n sentence based on n e w l y relief from his discovered material facts. establish t h a t he was that had recently h i s innocence." appeal the petition, this circuit Court and See testing Rule would i n n o c e n t o f t h e r a p e , and he a s s e r t e d establishing from asserted conviction S p e c i f i c a l l y , D o w d e l l a r g u e d t h a t DNA "only 1986 sentence of Dowdell 32.1(e). he 2002), challenging his In h i s p e t i t i o n , to relief. ( A l a . C r i m . App. c o n v i c t i o n f o r f i r s t - d e g r e e r a p e and h i s r e s u l t i n g 18 Court testing could for postconviction 2d 1195 State on a p p e a l , t h a t for individuals o f f e n s e s t o s e e k DNA The learned method of D o w d e l l , 854 So. 2d a t 1197. On court's held that of this summary dismissal of his Dowdell's request for DNA t e s t i n g was t i m e - b a r r e d by R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( c ) b e c a u s e A l a b a m a c o u r t s had r e c o g n i z e d the a d m i s s i b i l i t y 8 o f DNA evidence since 1991, CR-12-0748 when t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t Perry, DNA 586 So. evidence thus, that 2d 242 "was 2001 ( A l a . 1991) . widely Dowdell's l e a r n e d o f DNA i s s u e d i t s o p i n i o n i n Ex Id. publicized We during assertion that he parte also held the had that 1990s" only and, recently t e s t i n g w i t h i n s i x months o f f i l i n g h i s p e t i t i o n was not credible. Id. In doing so, June however, t h i s Court noted t h a t "[h]ad Dowdell f i l e d h i s p e t i t i o n w i t h i n a reasonable t i m e o f t h e d e c i s i o n i n Ex p a r t e P e r r y , h i s c l a i m t h a t he had o n l y r e c e n t l y l e a r n e d a b o u t DNA b e e n c r e d i b l e and we t e s t i n g w o u l d have w o u l d have c o n s i d e r e d the m e r i t s of h i s p e t i t i o n a l l e g i n g newly d i s c o v e r e d evidence." In 2004), Barbour v. State, Christopher D. 903 So. Barbour 2d 858 filed a Id. at 1198. ( A l a . Crim. successive App. Rule 32 p e t i t i o n a t t a c k i n g h i s c o n v i c t i o n s f o r three counts of c a p i t a l murder -- murder committed during murder committed d u r i n g the course committed d u r i n g the course sentence of death. the claims -- the a request case f o r DNA based on testing and h i s under Rule of the b i o l o g i c a l "'significant, 9 a recent rape, murder resulting in his petition c l a i m of newly d i s c o v e r e d m a t e r i a l f a c t s and of o f a b u r g l a r y , and o f an a r s o n Among t h e course was a 32.1(e) evidence in technological CR-12-0748 developments.'" the c i r c u i t Barbour, 903 So. 2d a t 864. On appeal c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of Barbour's p e t i t i o n , f i r s t n o t e d t h a t b e c a u s e B a r b o u r ' s r e q u e s t f o r DNA b a s e d on r e c e n t t e c h n o l o g i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t s r e q u e s t was time-barred However, testing this from Court testing i n DNA was testing, his n o t p r e c l u d e d as s u c c e s s i v e u n d e r R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( b ) o r by this failed Rule 32.2(c), Court held as that was the Barbour's t o meet t h e m a t e r i a l i t y case in Dowdell. request for requirement of DNA newly d i s c o v e r e d m a t e r i a l f a c t s i n Rule 32.1(e) because the e v i d e n c e at trial established that Barbour was an accomplice i n the r a p e , n o t t h e a c t u a l r a p i s t , and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , " t h e r e i s no n e e d f o r p o s t c o n v i c t i o n DNA t e s t i n g i n t h i s case; such w o u l d have no r e l e v a n c e . " I d . a t 8 67. Thus, i n b o t h D o w d e l l and B a r b o u r , t h a t a p o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e q u e s t f o r DNA a Rule 32 material petition facts within under Rule the t h i s Court recognized t e s t i n g c o u l d be made i n c o n f i n e s of newly 32.1(e). testing Although discovered § 15-18-200, e n a c t e d i n 2009, c l e a r l y t o o k p o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e q u e s t s f o r testing the for individuals realm affected of Rule 32, the a b i l i t y DNA c o n v i c t e d of c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s out of we do not believe of i n d i v i d u a l s 10 that c o n v i c t e d of § 15-18-200 noncapital CR-12-0748 o f f e n s e s t o s e e k DNA t e s t i n g t h r o u g h R u l e 32. 200 does n o t m e n t i o n DNA noncapital o f f e n s e s , and S e c t i o n 15-18¬ t e s t i n g f o r i n d i v i d u a l s c o n v i c t e d of the plain language of the statute e v i d e n c e s no i n t e n t on t h e p a r t o f t h e A l a b a m a l e g i s l a t u r e disturb existing law on the subject. As to the U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o r t h e E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t has a p t l y e x p l a i n e d : "Because i t a p p l i e s o n l y t o c a p i t a l defendants, Cunningham a r g u e s t h a t t h e new s t a t u t e [§ 15-18-200] c o n s t i t u t e s a ' d e l i b e r a t e p o l i c y c h o i c e ' by A l a b a m a t o deny e v i d e n c e f o r DNA testing i n non-capital c a s e s s u c h as h i s own. We a r e n o t p e r s u a d e d . The s t a t u t e does n o t a d d r e s s n o n - c a p i t a l c a s e s a t a l l , and n o t h i n g i n i t s l a n g u a g e s u g g e s t s any l e g i s l a t i v e intent to restrict or eliminate existing p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r n o n - c a p i t a l d e f e n d a n t s t o seek d i s c o v e r y u n d e r R u l e 32. The l e g i s l a t u r e m i g h t w e l l have t h o u g h t t h a t d e a t h p e n a l t y c a s e s h a d a more u r g e n t c l a i m on i t s a t t e n t i o n and w a r r a n t e d more e x p l i c i t and s p e c i f i c p r o c e d u r e s , w h i l e l e a v i n g t h e procedure i n n o n - c a p i t a l cases to the c o u r t s to develop." Cunningham v. D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y ' s O f f i c e f o r E s c a m b i a 592 F.3d 1237, 1267 (11th C i r . 2010). County, 3 I n Cunningham, t h e E l e v e n t h C i r c u i t C o u r t o f A p p e a l s c o n s i d e r e d whether Alabama's postconviction procedures f o r s e e k i n g DNA t e s t i n g were " c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y a d e q u a t e t o s e c u r e any l i m i t e d l i b e r t y i n t e r e s t [ c o n v i c t e d d e f e n d a n t s ] may have i n s e e k i n g DNA e v i d e n c e t h a t m i g h t p r o v e [ t h e i r ] i n n o c e n c e " i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n i n D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y ' s O f f i c e f o r t h e T h i r d J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t v. O s b o r n e , 557 U.S. 52 ( 2 0 0 9 ) . 592 F. 3d a t 1263. Because § 15-18-200 p r o v i d e s an avenue f o r i n d i v i d u a l s c o n v i c t e d o f c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s t o s e e k DNA t e s t i n g i n t h e p o s t c o n v i c t i o n 3 11 CR-12-0748 Therefore, we hold p o s t c o n v i c t i o n requests convicted govern of capital f o r DNA § 15-18-200 t e s t i n g f o r those offenses, postconviction individuals that requests while for Rule testing DNA continues for c o n v i c t e d of n o n - c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s . for DNA postconviction testing as a individuals 32 the c i r c u i t c o u r t here p r o p e r l y t r e a t e d L l o y d ' s request governs Rule to those Accordingly, postconviction 32 petition for relief. II. L l o y d a l s o a r g u e s on a p p e a l t h a t t h e c i r c u i t in denying p e r f o r m e d on his request P.P. t e s t e d f o r DNA, for Lloyd DNA testing contends t h a t of court the i f the he w o u l d be e x o n e r a t e d o f t h e r a p e and and t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s a p p l y i n g t h e in 32.2 miscarriage As rape to his request f o r DNA testing o f f e n s e , l i k e L l o y d , may individual convicted sodomy preclusions resulted in of j u s t i c e t h a t r e q u i r e s r e v e r s a l . n o t e d a b o v e , an kit r a p e k i t were o f P.P., Rule erred We of a a disagree. noncapital make a p o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e q u e s t for DNA c o n t e x t and b e c a u s e R u l e 32 p r o v i d e s an avenue f o r i n d i v i d u a l s c o n v i c t e d o f n o n c a p i t a l o f f e n s e s t o s e e k DNA t e s t i n g i n t h e p o s t c o n v i c t i o n c o n t e x t ( s p e c i f i c a l l y p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 32.1(e) and p o s t c o n v i c t i o n d i s c o v e r y u n d e r Ex p a r t e L a n d , 775 So. 2d 847 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ) , t h e C o u r t c o n c l u d e d , A l a b a m a ' s p r o c e d u r e s were a d e q u a t e and i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h O s b o r n e . 12 CR-12-0748 testing i n a Rule 32 p e t i t i o n within the confines of d i s c o v e r e d m a t e r i a l f a c t s under Rule 3 2 . 1 ( e ) . Barbour, supra. See D o w d e l l and R u l e 32.1(e) p r o v i d e s : " S u b j e c t t o t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f R u l e 32.2, any d e f e n d a n t who has been c o n v i c t e d o f a c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e may i n s t i t u t e a p r o c e e d i n g i n t h e c o u r t o f o r i g i n a l c o n v i c t i o n t o s e c u r e a p p r o p r i a t e r e l i e f on the g r o u n d t h a t : " "(e) Newly d i s c o v e r e d m a t e r i a l f a c t s e x i s t w h i c h r e q u i r e t h a t t h e c o n v i c t i o n o r s e n t e n c e be v a c a t e d by t h e c o u r t , b e c a u s e : "(1) The f a c t s r e l i e d upon were n o t known b y t h e p e t i t i o n e r or the p e t i t i o n e r ' s counsel a t the time of trial or s e n t e n c i n g or i n time t o f i l e a p o s t t r i a l m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 24, o r i n t i m e t o be i n c l u d e d i n any p r e v i o u s c o l l a t e r a l p r o c e e d i n g and c o u l d n o t have b e e n d i s c o v e r e d by any o f t h o s e times through the e x e r c i s e of reasonable d i l i g e n c e ; "(2) The f a c t s a r e n o t m e r e l y o t h e r f a c t s t h a t were known; "(3) The facts impeachment e v i d e n c e ; do not cumulative merely amount to to "(4) I f t h e f a c t s h a d been known a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l or of s e n t e n c i n g , the r e s u l t p r o b a b l y would have been d i f f e r e n t ; and "(5) The f a c t s e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r i s i n n o c e n t o f t h e c r i m e f o r w h i c h t h e p e t i t i o n e r was c o n v i c t e d o r s h o u l d n o t have r e c e i v e d t h e s e n t e n c e that the p e t i t i o n e r r e c e i v e d . " 13 newly CR-12-0748 (Emphasis added.) A l l f i v e r e q u i r e m e n t s i n R u l e 3 2 . 1 ( e ) must be s a t i s f i e d i n o r d e r t o c o n s t i t u t e n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d facts, and, i f a l l the requirements satisfied, a subject the State, to 84 McCartha 2011) claim So. v. newly preclusions 3d 159, State, 78 discovered i n Rule 161-62 So. material 1017-18 subject is See McConico v. App. 2011), and ( A l a . Crim. The i n Rule requirements Rule 32.1(e)(1), self-explanatory. discovered App. material t o s a t i s f y the requirements of Rule to the p r e c l u s i o n s not facts 32.2. (Ala. Crim. 3d 1014, 32.1(e) are (both h o l d i n g t h a t a c l a i m o f newly d i s c o v e r e d facts that f a i l s is of i n Rule material 32.1(e) 32.2). ( e ) ( 2 ) , and (e)(3) are Rule 32.1(e)(5) r e q u i r e s not t h a t the newly f a c t s a c t u a l l y e s t a b l i s h a p e t i t i o n e r ' s innocence but t h a t the newly discovered f a c t s "go t o the issue of the defendant's a c t u a l innocence," i . e . , are r e l e v a n t to the i s s u e of g u i l t or innocence, not d i r e c t l y b e a r i n g 89 So. Rule 3d 720, 32.1(e)(4) 727 "as o p p o s e d t o a p r o c e d u r a l on g u i l t o r i n n o c e n c e . " ( A l a . 2011). "that the As d i f f e r e n t had the newly d i s c o v e r e d Ex p a r t e f o r the r e s u l t probably Ward, requirement would have in been e v i d e n c e been p r e s e n t e d t o t h e j u r y , t h i s c a l c u l a t i o n must be made b a s e d on t h e 14 violation probative CR-12-0748 v a l u e o f t h e newly d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the other evidence p r e s e n t e d t o the j u r y . " I d . a t 728. I n t h i s c a s e , L l o y d ' s r e q u e s t f o r DNA t e s t i n g a p p e a r s t o satisfy the requirements i n Rule 32.1(e)(2) through (e)(5). L l o y d a l l e g e d t h a t no DNA t e s t i n g was p e r f o r m e d b e f o r e trial; thus, merely the results cumulative to 32.1(e)(2), evidence, of other and would see R u l e DNA testing facts that not merely 32.1(e)(3). c o n v i c t i o n s were b a s e d would were not be known, amount Lloyd also to see impeachment alleged that h i s f o r t h e most p a r t on t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e v i c t i m a n d s t a t e m e n t s made by t h e v i c t i m t o t h i r d and t h a t d e s p i t e a rape Rule k i tbeing collected, parties, no DNA testing was done t o d e t e r m i n e i f h i s DNA was i n t h e b i o l o g i c a l s a m p l e s c o l l e c t e d as p a r t o f t h e r a p e k i t . testing, i f those r e s u l t s m a t c h t h e DNA Thus, t h e r e s u l t s o f DNA r e v e a l e d t h a t L l o y d ' s DNA d i d not i n t h e r a p e k i t ( i f s u c h DNA e x i s t e d ) as L l o y d a r g u e s t h e y w o u l d , h a d t h e y b e e n known a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l or o f s e n t e n c i n g , p r o b a b l y w o u l d h a v e a l t e r e d t h e outcome o f h i s trial. See R u l e testing would innocence. 32.1(e)(4). clearly be Finally, relevant See R u l e 3 2 . 1 ( e ) ( 5 ) . 15 as the r e s u l t s to Lloyd's of DNA guilt or CR-12-0748 Although Lloyd's pleadings satisfy the last four requirements i n Rule 32.1(e), they c l e a r l y f a i l to s a t i s f y the f i r s t requirement. he was L l o y d d i d not a l l e g e i n h i s p e t i t i o n unaware o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e r a p e k i t p e r f o r m e d on o r t h a t he c o u l d n o t have h a d t h e k i t t e s t e d f o r DNA P.P. at the time of t r i a l or s e n t e n c i n g or i n time to f i l e m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 24, A l a . R. C r i m . P., included could i n any not obtained through previous c o l l a t e r a l have d i s c o v e r e d t h e DNA testing the exercise 32.1(e)(1). his request improvements of the of k i t by reasonable any rape times See in his petition f o r DNA testing was on i n DNA testing t h a t were n o t new he k i t or of those diligence. based that Rule that technological available at the at the time of h i s s e n t e n c i n g , at the time any p o s t t r i a l m o t i o n , o r a t t h e t i m e s he f i l e d h i s p r e v i o u s R u l e 32 petitions. B e c a u s e L l o y d ' s r e q u e s t f o r DNA all o r i n t i m e t o be e x i s t e n c e of the rape a posttrial p r o c e e d i n g , and L l o y d a l s o d i d not a l l e g e time of h i s t r i a l , of that five of the requirements i n Rule t e s t i n g does n o t satisfy 3 2 . 1 ( e ) , i t i s , as c i r c u i t c o u r t found, s u b j e c t to the p r e c l u s i o n s i n Rule the 32.2. B a s e d on o u r r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d f r o m L l o y d ' s d i r e c t a p p e a l , 16 CR-12-0748 it i s clear rape t h a t L l o y d was w e l l aware o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e k i t before mentioned his trial during a -- t h e r a p e pretrial hearing. r e q u e s t i s p r e c l u d e d by Rule 32.2(a)(3) c o u l d have b e e n , b u t was n o t , r a i s e d and k i t was s p e c i f i c a l l y Therefore, Lloyd's and (a)(5) because i t and a d d r e s s e d at t r i a l on a p p e a l . M o r e o v e r , b e c a u s e t h i s i s L l o y d ' s t h i r d R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , his request Although i s precluded by i t i s u n c l e a r from Rule 32.2(b) t h i s Court's as successive. records whether o r n o t L l o y d r e q u e s t e d DNA t e s t i n g i n h i s s e c o n d p e t i t i o n , the circumstances application i n this case, of Rule 32.2(b). 4 t h a t does n o t p r o h i b i t I f L l o y d d i d r e q u e s t DNA under our testing i n h i s second p e t i t i o n , h i s c u r r e n t request i s p r e c l u d e d under the provision grant r e l i e f i n Rule 32.2(b) that "[t]he court s h a l l not on a s u c c e s s i v e p e t i t i o n on t h e same o r s i m i l a r g r o u n d s on b e h a l f o f t h e same p e t i t i o n e r . " r e q u e s t DNA t e s t i n g i n h i s second I f Lloyd d i d not p e t i t i o n , then h i s c u r r e n t r e q u e s t i s p r e c l u d e d under t h e p r o v i s i o n i n R u l e 32.2(b) t h a t " [ a ] s u c c e s s i v e p e t i t i o n on d i f f e r e n t g r o u n d s s h a l l be d e n i e d unless" (1) t h e new g r o u n d s are j u r i s d i c t i o n a l or (2) t h e T h i s C o u r t ' s r e c o r d s r e f l e c t t h a t L l o y d d i d n o t make any r e q u e s t f o r DNA t e s t i n g i n h i s f i r s t p e t i t i o n . 4 17 CR-12-0748 petitioner establishes ground grounds or ascertained were through that not "good c a u s e known reasonable or exists could diligence why not when the new have the been first p e t i t i o n was h e a r d , and t h a t f a i l u r e t o e n t e r t a i n t h e p e t i t i o n will r e s u l t i n a m i s c a r r i a g e of j u s t i c e . " testing as a newly-discovered-material-facts claim jurisdictional, good cause A request f o r and f o r not Lloyd failed making his to allege request in his f o r DNA is testing Rule 32.2(c) p r o v i d e s : "Subject to the f u r t h e r p r o v i s i o n s h e r e i n a f t e r set out i n t h i s section, the c o u r t s h a l l not e n t e r t a i n any p e t i t i o n f o r r e l i e f f r o m a c o n v i c t i o n or s e n t e n c e on t h e g r o u n d s s p e c i f i e d i n R u l e 3 2 . 1 ( a ) and ( f ) , u n l e s s t h e p e t i t i o n i s f i l e d : (1) I n t h e case of a c o n v i c t i o n a p p e a l e d t o the Court of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s , w i t h i n one (1) y e a r a f t e r t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h e c e r t i f i c a t e o f j u d g m e n t by t h e C o u r t of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s u n d e r R u l e 41, A l a . R. App. P.; or (2) i n t h e c a s e o f a c o n v i c t i o n n o t a p p e a l e d t o 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 , w i t h i n one (1) y e a r after the time for f i l i n g an appeal lapses; p r o v i d e d , however, t h a t t h e time f o r f i l i n g a p e t i t i o n u n d e r R u l e 3 2 . 1 ( f ) t o s e e k an o u t - o f - t i m e appeal from the d i s m i s s a l or d e n i a l of a p e t i t i o n p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d u n d e r any p r o v i s i o n o f R u l e 32.1 s h a l l be s i x (6) months f r o m t h e d a t e t h e p e t i t i o n e r d i s c o v e r s the d i s m i s s a l or d e n i a l , i r r e s p e c t i v e of the one-year d e a d l i n e s s p e c i f i e d i n the p r e c e d i n g s u b p a r t s (1) and (2) o f t h i s s e n t e n c e ; and p r o v i d e d f u r t h e r t h a t the immediately p r e c e d i n g p r o v i s o s h a l l n o t e x t e n d e i t h e r o f t h o s e o n e - y e a r d e a d l i n e s as 18 not petition e i t h e r o f h i s two p r e v i o u s p e t i t i o n s . Finally, DNA in CR-12-0748 t h e y may apply to the p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d p e t i t i o n . The c o u r t s h a l l n o t e n t e r t a i n a p e t i t i o n b a s e d on the grounds s p e c i f i e d i n R u l e 32.1(e) u n l e s s the p e t i t i o n i s f i l e d w i t h i n the a p p l i c a b l e one-year p e r i o d s p e c i f i e d i n the f i r s t sentence of this section, or within six (6) months after the d i s c o v e r y of the newly d i s c o v e r e d m a t e r i a l f a c t s , whichever i s l a t e r ; provided, however, t h a t the o n e - y e a r p e r i o d d u r i n g w h i c h a p e t i t i o n may be b r o u g h t s h a l l i n no c a s e be deemed t o have begun t o run b e f o r e the e f f e c t i v e date of the p r e c u r s o r of t h i s r u l e , i . e . , A p r i l 1, 1987." Lloyd's petition was filed over four years a f t e r t h i s Court i s s u e d the c e r t i f i c a t e of judgment f i n a l i z i n g h i s c o n v i c t i o n s and, as n o t e d a b o v e , i t i s c l e a r t h a t L l o y d was e x i s t e n c e of the rape k i t b e f o r e h i s t r i a l began. his also clearly aware o f request Rule f o r DNA 32.2(c). Rule t e s t i n g was the Therefore, time-barred by 5 3 2 . 7 ( d ) , A l a . R. court to summarily dismiss Crim. P., authorizes a p e t i t i o n e r ' s R u l e 32 the circuit petition " [ i f the c o u r t determines t h a t the p e t i t i o n i s not s u f f i c i e n t l y s p e c i f i c , or i s p r e c l u d e d , or f a i l s to L l o y d d i d not a s s e r t e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g i n h i s p e t i t i o n . See, e.g., Ex p a r t e Ward, 46 So. 3d 888, 897-98 ( A l a . 2007) ("[When a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n i s t i m e - b a r r e d on i t s f a c e , t h e p e t i t i o n must e s t a b l i s h e n t i t l e m e n t t o t h e remedy a f f o r d e d by the d o c t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g . A p e t i t i o n t h a t does n o t a s s e r t e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g , or t h a t a s s e r t s i t but f a i l s to s t a t e any p r i n c i p l e o f law o r any f a c t t h a t w o u l d e n t i t l e t h e petitioner to the equitable tolling of the applicable l i m i t a t i o n s p r o v i s i o n , may be s u m m a r i l y d i s m i s s e d w i t h o u t a hearing."). 5 19 CR-12-0748 s t a t e a c l a i m , o r t h a t no m a t e r i a l i s s u e o f f a c t o r law e x i s t s which would e n t i t l e the p e t i t i o n e r t o r e l i e f u n d e r t h i s r u l e and t h a t no p u r p o s e w o u l d be s e r v e d by any f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s ... " See a l s o Hannan v. S t a t e , 861 So. 2d 426, 2 0 0 3 ) ; Colman v. S t a t e , 2002); 1992). Tatu v. State, 607 Because Lloyd's precluded, the c i r c u i t R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n was 852 So. 2d 191, 2d 383, r e q u e s t f o r DNA court's ( A l a . Crim. App. 193 ( A l a . Crim. App. ( A l a . Crim. App. 384 t e s t i n g was clearly summary d i s m i s s a l o f Lloyd's appropriate. B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , is So. 427 the judgment o f the c i r c u i t court affirmed. AFFIRMED. Windom, P . J . , and W e l c h , B u r k e , and J o i n e r , J J . , c o n c u r . 20

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.