Gibson v. State

8 Citing cases

  1. Gibson v. Hooks

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07cv009-MHT (WO) (M.D. Ala. Mar. 24, 2010)

    Id. Gibson then filed another petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court held a hearing on the petition and, on May 11, 1990, denied relief on the ground that the issues "could have been but were not raised at trial and were such which could have been but were not raised on appeal." The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Gibson v. State, 580 So.2d 38 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990). Gibson's petition for certiorari to the Alabama Supreme Court was initially granted but later quashed.

  2. Debruce v. State

    890 So. 2d 1068 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    We agree. We have often stated that Brady claims are subject to the procedural bars of Rule 32.2(a)(3) and 32.2(a)(5), Ala.R.Crim.P. See Williams v. State, 782 So.2d 811 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000), cert. denied, 782 So.2d 842 (Ala. 2000); Holladay v. State, 629 So.2d 673 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1171, 114 S.Ct. 1208, 127 L.Ed.2d 555 (1994); and Gibson v. State, 580 So.2d 38 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990). DeBruce does not argue that these claims were based on newly discovered evidence.

  3. Weaver v. State

    678 So. 2d 260 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995)   Cited 53 times
    Holding that the district attorney's office need not recuse itself from a case because an assistant district attorney had represented the appellant's accomplice before being employed by the district attorney's office.

    The appellant's argument must fail because the State did not fail to disclose this information. Ex parte Cammon, 578 So.2d 1089 (Ala. 1991); Gibson v. State, 580 So.2d 38 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990). Nettles v. State, 601 So.2d 132 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992).

  4. Cade v. State

    629 So. 2d 38 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)   Cited 44 times

    Indeed, this court has specifically applied the procedural bars of Rule 20 (now Rule 32) to appeals from collateral attacks on convictions in death penalty cases. Duren v. State, 590 So.2d 360 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), [aff'd] 590 So.2d 369 (Ala. 1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1594, 118 L.Ed.2d 310 (1992); Gibson v. State, 580 So.2d 38 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990)." Thompson v. State, supra, 615 So.2d at 131.

  5. Holladay v. State

    629 So. 2d 673 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)   Cited 64 times
    In Holladay, which was released after Freeman, this Court held that we could not consider a claim of juror misconduct because there was no evidence that this claim could not have been raised on direct appeal. More recently, in Whitley we held that the trial court erred in addressing a juror-misconduct claim on the merits because the record reflected that the appellant was aware of the alleged misconduct before he filed his motion for a new trial.

    Floyd v. State, 571 So.2d 1221, 1233 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989), reversed on other grounds, 571 So.2d 1234 (Ala. 1990) (this court held that, although the trial court found an issue precluded on the incorrect basis that it was contained in a successive petition, the issue was properly precluded because it was not raised at trial or on direct appeal). Cf. Gibson v. State, 580 So.2d 38 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990) (wherein the appellant's claim pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), raised in both petitioners' Rule 20 petitions was procedurally barred where the issue could have been, but was not, raised at trial or on direct appeal, because the defendants filed their petitions with the trial court before oral argument on direct appeal and before the filing of reply briefs.)

  6. Thompson v. State

    615 So. 2d 129 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)   Cited 6 times

    Indeed, this court has specifically applied the procedural bars of Rule 20 (now Rule 32) to appeals from collateral attacks on convictions in death penalty cases. Duren v. State, 590 So.2d 360 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), 590 So.2d 369 (Ala. 1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1594, 118 L.Ed.2d 310 (1992); Gibson v. State, 580 So.2d 38 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990).

  7. Nettles v. State

    601 So. 2d 132 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)   Cited 3 times

    Because the record is clear that the appellant was furnished the tape before trial, the appellant's Brady argument must fail, as there was no failure to disclose. Ex parte Cammon, 578 So.2d 1089 (Ala. 1991); Gibson v. State, 580 So.2d 38 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990). In addition to the alleged Brady violation, the appellant argues that his conviction should be reversed because, he says, it was based on perjured testimony.

  8. Hays v. State

    599 So. 2d 1230 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)   Cited 6 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Therefore, this issue is precluded. Rule 20.2(a)(2), (4), A.R.Cr.P.Temp.; Gibson v. State, 580 So.2d 38, 41 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990). Furthermore, the fact that this murder was unskillfully and haphazardly conceived does not exclude the fact that it was premeditated and deliberate.