Case Law State v. Gissendanner (Ex parte Gissendanner)

State v. Gissendanner (Ex parte Gissendanner)

Document Cited Authorities (37) Cited in (12) Related

Becca Wahlquist of Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., Los Angeles, California, for petitioner.

Steve Marshall, atty. gen., and Andrew Brasher, deputy atty. gen., and Lauren A. Simpson, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.

BOLIN, Justice.1

This Court granted certiorari in this case to review the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion reversing in part the Dale Circuit Court's order granting Emanuel Aaron Gissendanner, Jr., a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel and a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

I. Facts and Procedural History
A. Trial

In 2001, Gissendanner was charged with three counts of capital murder in the death of Margaret Snellgrove: murder during a kidnapping in the first degree, § 13A-5-40(a)(1), Ala. Code 1975; murder during a robbery in the first degree, § 13A-5-40(a)(2), Ala. Code 1975; and murder during a rape, § 13A-5-40(a)(3), Ala. Code 1975. A separate indictment charged Gissendanner with possessing or uttering a forged check drawn on Snellgrove's bank account, in violation of § 13A–9–6, Ala. Code 1975. He was convicted of two counts of capital murder -- murder during the course of a robbery and murder during the course of a kidnapping -- and of possession of a forged instrument. The jury recommended by a vote of 10-2 that he be sentenced to death on the capital-murder convictions. The circuit court then sentenced Gissendanner to death on the capital-murder convictions. He was sentenced, as a habitual offender, to life imprisonment on the forgery conviction. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. Gissendanner v. State, 949 So.2d 956 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006).

Judge Kenneth Quattlebaum was the trial judge. His sentencing order contained a summary of the findings related to Gissendanner's participation in the crimes; it provided, in part, as follows:

"On Friday, June 22, 2001, [Gissendanner] intentionally caused the death of Margaret Snellgrove by inflicting severe head and neck injuries to her. The assault occurred at the victim's home. On Saturday, June 23, 200[1], neighbors and relatives became concerned about the victim, as she could not be located. She had missed several appointments on June 22nd and on June 23rd. She was last seen June 21, 2001. The police were contacted and examination of the victim's home revealed that she had been assaulted in her carport. Hair and blood, as well as the victim's broken glasses and an earring were discovered in the carport. The victim's car, a 1998 Oldsmobile Ninety–Eight, was missing. No one witnessed the assault, and there is no evidence of an accomplice in the case. [Gissendanner] had been to the victim's residence previously. He helped witness Reverend David Brown with yard work at her house for about three hours in March or April 2001.
"A witness testified that she saw a black guy driving an automobile matching the description of the victim's car at approximately 6:30 a.m. on the morning of June 22nd.2 The location where the witness saw the automobile was in close proximity to the victim's home. The witness could not identify the driver as [Gissendanner], but her attention was drawn to the vehicle because her sister-in-law had an automobile that looked the same.
"On the morning of June 22nd, [Gissendanner], driving the victim's vehicle, picked up his best friend, Bernard Campbell, nicknamed ‘Nobbie,’ and they went to Clio. [Gissendanner] told Nobbie that the car belonged to one of his girlfriends. In Clio [Gissendanner], driving the victim's automobile, picked up three females who knew both [Gissendanner] and Nobbie, and they rode around, drank beer, and smoked weed. [Gissendanner] was wearing a brown pair of Dickey [brand] pants, a red shirt and a white tee shirt. [Gissendanner] told the females that he had bought the car from an ‘old white woman.’ They all noticed a Bible in the car.3
"Queen Esther Morris testified that she saw [Gissendanner] the morning of June 22nd in the victim's car. [Gissendanner] told Morris that he was going fishing.
"Around 1:00 a.m. the morning of June 23rd the victim's automobile was reported abandoned on property owned by Linda Russell. Upon checking the license plate it was confirmed to be the victim's missing automobile.4 [Gissendanner] testified that the automobile was rented to him by an individual named Buster he saw early Friday morning who was looking to buy some drugs. [Gissendanner] further testified that Buster gave him a check on the victim's account, asked him to cash it and said he would use the proceeds to buy drugs from [Gissendanner].
"Following the discovery of the victim's automobile, law enforcement began a search and investigation in the area for the victim's body. The car was examined and blood was discovered in the trunk of the car, on the underside of the trunk lid. The blood was later determined to be that of the victim.
"Investigators searched a nearby abandoned trailer in which [Gissendanner] sometimes stayed. In the trailer they found several items belonging to the victim including a cell phone, the victim's purse and some papers taken from the stolen vehicle. Investigators also found some of [Gissendanner's] clothing in the trailer which matched the description of the clothing [Gissendanner] was wearing on Friday morning during his trip to Clio. The victim's bloodstains were found on the clothing.
"On Saturday evening, June 23rd, [Gissendanner] paid his former wife $100.00 to drive him to Montgomery to visit his sister. She did so. [Gissendanner] was there in Montgomery when he was identified as a suspect, and he returned voluntarily to the Ozark Police Department, where he was questioned. He denied any involvement in the death of the victim, but admitted to driving her automobile and cashing the victim's check at the SouthTrust Bank in Ozark.
"The body of Margaret Snellgrove was found with the use of a cadaver dog on June 27, 2001, near the area where the automobile was found abandoned and near the trailer where [Gissendanner's] clothes and the victim's belongings were found. The body was found in a ditch covered with tree limbs.5 It appeared to have been there for several days and was badly decomposed. An autopsy determined that Margaret Snellgrove died of severe head and neck injuries. When the body was found she was in her panties with her shirt and brassiere pulled up under her arms. Her breasts were exposed.
_________________________
"2[Gissendanner] is a black male.
"3 The victim's niece testified that the victim often carried a Bible.
"4[Gissendanner] did not deny having and using the victim's automobile.
"5 A knife was found in the stolen vehicle. The knife appeared to be freshly used for cutting wood. The limbs covering the victim's body had been cut there in the immediate vicinity of the ditch where she was found."

Gissendanner, 949 So.2d at 959–60.

The trial judge further found the existence of three aggravating circumstances under § 13A-5-49, Ala. Code 1975: (1) that the murder was committed during a kidnapping; (2) that the murder was committed during a robbery; and (3) that the murder was committed while Gissendanner was on probation for five felony convictions (possession of a controlled substance and four second-degree-forgery convictions). The trial judge found no mitigating circumstances as set out in § 13A-5-51, Ala. Code 1975, and that any evidence of additional mitigating circumstances pursuant to § 13A-5-52, Ala. Code 1975, was far outweighed by the aggravating circumstances.

The trial judge concluded:

"The court finds that this conviction is based upon circumstantial evidence. The guilt of the defendant may be proved by circumstantial evidence. The test of the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence is whether the circumstances, as proved, produce a moral conviction, to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt, of the guilt of the accused. The court finds that the state has met the burden of this test in this case. The court recognizes that there should not be a conviction based upon circumstantial evidence unless it excludes every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the defendant. The court concludes from the evidence that the circumstances in this case cannot be reconciled with the theory that someone other than [Gissendanner] may have done the act. [Gissendanner] has been proven guilty by that full measure of proof the law requires.
"The court has not considered any statement by the victim's family members concerning the family member's opinions or characterization of the victim or [Gissendanner] or of the crimes or the appropriate sentence.
"The court has considered all of the evidence in the case, and the court has weighed the aggravating circumstances against the mitigating circumstances. After giving full measure and weight to each of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and taking into account the recommendation of the jury contained in its advisory verdict, it is the judgment of the court that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances shown by the evidence in this case. The aggravating circumstances speak for themselves and carry great weight in the mind of any reasonable and rational person. It is clear that the murder, the kidnapping, and the robbery that were committed in this case were deliberately and intentionally planned and carried out. [Gissendanner] chose his innocent victim at random to provide him with a joy ride and some cash. After killing her and abusing her he disposed of her body in a manner not suitable for an animal and left it to deteriorate and decompose in the open. The evidence illustrates graphically the evil intent of [Gissendanner] and his total disregard for the value of human life."
B. Rule 32 Proceedings

In 2007, Gissendanner timely filed a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition...

5 cases
Document | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals – 2020
State v. Petric
"...components of the ineffectiveness inquiry are mixed questions of law and fact.’ 466 U.S. at 698, 104 S.Ct. 2052." Ex parte Gissendanner, 288 So. 3d 1011, 1027-28 (Ala. 2019).3 "We recognize that such a ‘mix’ of legal and factual questions can be difficult to tease apart. As some federal cou..."
Document | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals – 2020
Brooks v. State
"...Brooks was prejudiced by his counsels’ performance as to the claims heard during the evidentiary hearing. Cf. Ex parte Gissendanner, 288 So. 3d 1011, 1028-29 (Ala. 2019) (holding that, when the same judge presides over both the trial and Rule 32 proceedings, this Court must give that judge'..."
Document | Utah Court of Appeals – 2021
State v. Torres-Orellana
"...claims," and therefore reviewing the district court's prejudice determination "largely for clear error"); Ex parte Gissendanner , 288 So. 3d 1011, 1028–29 (Ala. 2019) (concluding that the intermediate appellate court erred "in failing to give [the trial judge's] findings of prejudicial inef..."
Document | Colorado Court of Appeals – 2021
Peo v Cox
"...(3d Cir. 2002) (mere existence of alternative strategies does not satisfy deficiency prong of Strickland test); Ex parte Gissendanner, 288 So. 3d 1011, 1034 (Ala. 2019) (“As Strickland explains, the range of reasonable professional judgments is wide and courts must take care to avoid illegi..."
Document | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals – 2022
State v. Mitchell
"...P.3d 185, 234-35 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).""‘State v. Gissendanner, 288 So. 3d 923, 965 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015)[, rev’d, Ex parte Gissendanner, 288 So. 3d1011 (Ala. 2019)]. "[C]ounsel does not necessarily render ineffective assistance simply because he does not present all possible mitigating..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals – 2020
State v. Petric
"...components of the ineffectiveness inquiry are mixed questions of law and fact.’ 466 U.S. at 698, 104 S.Ct. 2052." Ex parte Gissendanner, 288 So. 3d 1011, 1027-28 (Ala. 2019).3 "We recognize that such a ‘mix’ of legal and factual questions can be difficult to tease apart. As some federal cou..."
Document | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals – 2020
Brooks v. State
"...Brooks was prejudiced by his counsels’ performance as to the claims heard during the evidentiary hearing. Cf. Ex parte Gissendanner, 288 So. 3d 1011, 1028-29 (Ala. 2019) (holding that, when the same judge presides over both the trial and Rule 32 proceedings, this Court must give that judge'..."
Document | Utah Court of Appeals – 2021
State v. Torres-Orellana
"...claims," and therefore reviewing the district court's prejudice determination "largely for clear error"); Ex parte Gissendanner , 288 So. 3d 1011, 1028–29 (Ala. 2019) (concluding that the intermediate appellate court erred "in failing to give [the trial judge's] findings of prejudicial inef..."
Document | Colorado Court of Appeals – 2021
Peo v Cox
"...(3d Cir. 2002) (mere existence of alternative strategies does not satisfy deficiency prong of Strickland test); Ex parte Gissendanner, 288 So. 3d 1011, 1034 (Ala. 2019) (“As Strickland explains, the range of reasonable professional judgments is wide and courts must take care to avoid illegi..."
Document | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals – 2022
State v. Mitchell
"...P.3d 185, 234-35 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).""‘State v. Gissendanner, 288 So. 3d 923, 965 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015)[, rev’d, Ex parte Gissendanner, 288 So. 3d1011 (Ala. 2019)]. "[C]ounsel does not necessarily render ineffective assistance simply because he does not present all possible mitigating..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex