Ex parte Dobyne

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed Willie Dobyne's Rule 32 post-conviction claims arising from his death-penalty conviction. The court held that plain-error review did not apply to a certiorari petition from a post-conviction proceeding, clarified the applicable standard for juror-misconduct claims, and upheld the denial of relief. The court also addressed Dobyne's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.

Holdings

1. Plain-error review under Rule 39(a)(2), Ala. R. App. P., applies only to a certiorari petition arising from the direct appeal of a death sentence, not to a petition reviewing the denial of a Rule 32 postconviction petition.
2. A juror-misconduct claim alleging a constitutional violation may be brought under Rule 32.1(a) and need not satisfy the newly discovered material facts requirements of Rule 32.1(e), although the claim remains subject to the procedural bars in Rule 32.2.
3. A juror's failure to answer a voir dire question warrants a new trial or reversal when the defendant might have been prejudiced, rather than only when actual prejudice is shown.
4. Dobyne was not entitled to postconviction relief because he failed to present evidence that a truthful answer by the foreperson would have caused the defense to challenge her for cause or exercise a peremptory strike.
5. Dobyne's ineffective-assistance claims did not warrant relief because claims raised or addressed on direct appeal were precluded by Rule 32.2(a)(4), and Dobyne failed to establish that additional venue evidence or further investigation of his statement would have changed the outcome.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plain-error review applies to a certiorari petition arising from an appeal from the denial of a Rule 32 postconviction petition in a death-penalty case.
2. Whether Dobyne's juror-misconduct claim was improperly treated as subject to the newly discovered evidence requirements of Rule 32.1(e).
3. What standard governs whether a juror's failure to answer a voir dire question warrants a new trial or postconviction relief.
4. Whether Dobyne established prejudice from the foreperson's alleged nondisclosure during voir dire.
5. Whether Dobyne's ineffective-assistance claims were precluded because the underlying issues had been raised or addressed on direct appeal, or because he failed to establish prejudice under Strickland.

Disposition

affirmed