Jefferson v. State

1

Cary Trant Jefferson v. State of Alabama

No. CR-20-0801

Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

May 27, 2022

This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

Appeal from Madison Circuit Court (CC-16-1084.60).

COLE Judge.

Cary Trant Jefferson appeals the Madison Circuit Court's summary dismissal of his Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief.

Facts and Procedural History

In 2017, Jefferson was convicted of murder, a violation of § 13A-6-2, Ala. Code 1975, and was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment. The evidence at Jefferson's trial tended to establish the following:

"In August 2015, Jefferson and Doris Timmons were in a romantic relationship. They had been living together for several months when the relationship began to deteriorate. Timmons was in the process of packing her things to move out when Jefferson shot her. After shooting her, Jefferson called emergency 911 for help. Police and medical personnel responded to the residence. Timmons was transported to the hospital. Within a couple of hours of the shooting Investigator Stacey Rutherford spoke to Timmons while she was in the hospital emergency room. Investigator Rutherford testified that Timmons told him that she had been out with her family that evening and had returned home. Her boyfriend Jefferson, was intoxicated and started yelling at her telling her to leave the residence. Timmons told Jefferson that she would leave in the morning. Timmons went into a separate bedroom and got into bed. Timmons told Inv Rutherford that Jefferson entered the room, pulled the blanket off of her, and told her to get out. Jefferson then left the room and, shortly thereafter, Timmons heard a gunshot. Jefferson returned to the room and shot her. Timmons told Inv. Rutherford that she did not want to die. The next day, Inv. Rutherford returned to the hospital and spoke with Timmons again. Timmons gave another statement to Inv. Rutherford. This statement essentially reiterated the facts provided in her previous statement but included a few more details. Timmons was paralyzed from the chest down and lived in that condition for almost three months before dying from complications resulting from her injury.

"Jefferson testified on his own behalf. He admitted to consuming alcoholic beverages on the day of the shooting but denied being intoxicated. He stated that he had no knowledge that Timmons was in the process of moving out at the time. Jefferson testified that when Timmons came home that evening, he had just gotten out of the shower. He asked her if she was coming to bed, and Timmons told him that she would be in later. Timmons, instead, went to bed in another room. When Jefferson used the restroom in the hallway, he looked into the other bedroom, which was dark, and saw a light indicating that Timmons was using her cell phone. When Timmons became aware of Jefferson's presence, she covered the phone up. Jefferson testified that he went around on the side of the bed and pulled the comforter back to see what Timmons was doing. Jefferson thought that maybe she was texting another man. Jefferson stated that he asked her who she was texting and tried to grab the phone. The phone flipped onto the bed. According to Jefferson, Timmons then got out of the bed and pulled a knife from under her pillow. She told Jefferson she was seeing someone else and to go away. Jefferson testified that he feared she might stab him so he went to his room and grabbed his pistol. He fired the pistol to the floor in the hallway as 'a warning shot' for Timmons to put the knife down. (R. 189.) Jefferson walked back into Timmons's room. Timmons was standing by the bed. Jefferson told her to put the knife down. Jefferson testified that she continued to hold the knife and that 'she was standing like right there in the corner and she said something, Father, God or something and she stepped toward me and that's when I fired the shot.' (R. 190.) Timmons fell to the floor. Jefferson tried to use the land line to call for help, but he could not get a dial tone. Jefferson went back to Timmons's room and used her cell phone to call emergency 911."

Jefferson v. State (No. CR-17-0275, Aug. 3, 2018), 286 So.3d 13 (Ala.Crim.App.2018) (table).

On direct appeal, Jefferson argued, among other things, that "the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a copy of the autopsy report" because the "admission of the report in lieu of testimony violated his right to confront the witnesses against him." Id. This Court noted that Jefferson's trial counsel argued that the admission of the autopsy report "deprives Mr. Jefferson of his right to confront the witnesses against him under the Sixth Amendment of the United States constitution," but it rejected Jefferson's argument on the basis that, under Perkins v. State, 897 So.2d 457 (Ala.Crim.App.2004),

"the report was admitted under the business-record exception to hearsay, which … 'is a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule.' Perkins, 897 So.2d at 464. Additionally, the autopsy report was non-testimonial; consequently, its admission did not violate Jefferson's right to confront the witnesses against him."

Jefferson, supra. This Court further explained that, even so, the admission of the autopsy report was harmless error because Jefferson admitted that he shot Timmons, albeit under a claim of self-defense, and because Jefferson did not challenge the cause of death during the trial.

Thereafter, Jefferson sought certiorari review in the Alabama Supreme Court. The Alabama Supreme Court granted Jefferson's petition on November 8, 2018, but it quashed the writ on March 15, 2019. See Ex parte Jefferson, 283 So.3d 769 (Ala. 2019). Justice Shaw authored a special concurrence, which Justice Bolin joined, in which Justice Shaw concluded that Jefferson's trial counsel's "bare-bones objection" did not preserve for appellate review his Confrontation Clause argument. Ex parte Jefferson, 283 So.3d at 771 (Shaw, J., concurring specially). Justice Sellers filed an opinion dissenting from the Supreme Court's decision, which Justices Mendheim and Mitchell joined. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Sellers concluded that Jefferson's Confrontation Clause argument was preserved for appellate review and entitled him to relief. This Court issued a certificate of judgment on March 15, 2019, making Jefferson's conviction and sentence final.

On July 31, 2019, Jefferson filed the instant Rule 32 petition. (C. 10-20.) In his petition, Jefferson alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve his Confrontation Clause argument for appellate review. (C. 15-17.) Jefferson also alleged that newly discovered evidence exists that requires that his conviction and sentence be vacated. Jefferson alleged that he had obtained a toxicology report through a public-records request made during the appeal process, which "revealed the presence of diazepam (270 ng/g), nordiazepam, (460 ng/g), and oxycodone (1200 ng/g)" in Timmons's liver. (C. 18.) Jefferson further alleged that he had "consulted with a toxicologist and retired Professor of Pharmacology, Dr. Jimmie Valentine," who had opined "'that oxycodone and the other drugs/metabolites had a role in [Timmons's] death.'" (C. 18.)

On August 21, 2019, the State moved to dismiss Jefferson's petition, arguing, among other things, that Jefferson's claims were insufficiently pleaded. (C. 82- 84.) On the same day the State moved to dismiss his petition, Jefferson filed a "Reply to State's Response," in which Jefferson argued that his claims were sufficiently pleaded but asked the circuit court, if the circuit court agreed with the State's argument, for leave to amend his petition "in lieu of a summary dismissal." (C. 88.)

On August 26, 2019, the circuit court issued an order giving Jefferson 10 days to amend his petition. (C. 95.) On September 5, 2019, at 9:53 a.m., before the expiration of that 10-day period, the circuit court issued an order summarily dismissing Jefferson's petition. (C. 96.) This appeal follows.^[1]

Discussion

On appeal, Jefferson argues that the circuit court erred when it summarily dismissed his petition "without holding an evidentiary hearing, and without allowing [him] to amend" his petition. (Jefferson's brief, p. 24.) The State argues that the circuit court properly dismissed Jefferson's petition because it "was insufficiently pleaded and any error in denying the petition without allowing him to amend was harmless." (State's brief p. 11.) For the following reasons, we reverse the circuit court's summary dismissal of Jefferson's petition and we remand this case for further proceedings.

In Ex parte Rhone, 900 So.2d 455 (Ala. 2004), the Alabama Supreme Court addressed amending Rule 32 petitions as follows:

"[A]lthough '[l]eave to amend a Rule 32 petition is within the discretion of the trial court, ... it should be freely granted.' Ex parte Allen, 825 So.2d 271, 273 (Ala. 2002) (emphasis added) (quoted with approval in Ex parte Nesbitt, 850 So.2d 228, 232 (Ala. 2002)).

"This Court's statements concerning the amendment of Rule 32 petitions are supported by the plain language of Rule 32.7, Ala. R. Crim. P. Subsection (b) of that rule unambiguously grants discretion to the trial court, providing that '[a]mendments to pleadings may be permitted at any stage of the proceedings prior to the entry of judgment." (Emphasis added.) Guiding the exercise of that discretion is

...