After conducting its own sentencing hearing, the trial court found that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances and sentenced Key to death. Key then appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed as to the conviction and remanded the case with directions to the trial court to correct deficiencies in its sentencing order. Key v. State, 891 So.2d 353 (Ala.Crim.App. 2002). On remand, the trial court stated that it found three statutory aggravating circumstances to exist.
. See also Key v. State, 891 So.2d 353, 368 (Ala.Crim.App. 2002), affirmed, 891 So.2d 384 (Ala. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1005, 125 S.Ct. 608, 160 L.Ed.2d 466 (2004) (holding that Key would not have been entitled to relief on his claim that § 13A-5-40(a)(17) is unconstitutionally vague and arbitrary and that "to punish a defendant whose victim was sitting in a car differently from a defendant whose victim stumbled away from a car violated equal-protection principles" because this Court "has previously considered and rejected the constitutional arguments" raised by Key).
"This is precisely the type of strategic choice, based on counsel's examination of the relevant facts and legal principles, that our cases have deemed to be virtually unchallengeable." Key v. State, 891 So.2d 353, 376 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). As the circuit court in Key aptly noted:
The Court of Criminal Appeals itself has recognized the limited holding of Ex parte Minor. In Key v. State, 891 So. 2d 353 (Ala.Crim.App. 2002), the defendant, Key, was convicted of the capital murder of his ex-wife. The State offered evidence during the penalty phase of the trial indicating that on the day before he killed his ex-wife Key had pleaded guilty to aggravated stalking as to his ex-wife and had been sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.
Although Dearman's "guilty plea waived this nonjurisdictional claim from review as it relates to the guilt phase[, b]ecause the same jury heard the penalty phase of the proceeding, we will review the claim on appeal as it relates to that phase of the trial." See Key v. State, 891 So.2d 353, 371 (Ala.Crim.App.2002). Additionally, because Dearman failed to raise a Batson claim at trial, this Court will review this claim for plain error only.
However, the holdings in Minor and Snyder have been repeatedly held to apply only to those cases in which the defendant testified and the evidence of prior convictions was admitted for impeachment purposes, and then on a case-by-case basis. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, [Ms. 1041313, Oct. 6, 2006] ––– So.[3]d –––– (Ala.2006); Ex parte Martin, 931 So.2d 759 (Ala.2004); Key v. State, 891 So.2d 353 (Ala.Crim.App.2002).”Floyd v. State, [Ms. CR–05–0935, September 28, 2007]
“This is precisely the type of strategic choice, based on counsel's examination of the relevant facts and legal principles, that our cases have deemed to be virtually unchallengeable.” Key v. State, 891 So.2d 353, 376 (Ala.Crim.App.2002). As the circuit court in Key aptly noted:
"This is precisely the type of strategic choice, based on counsel's examination of the relevant facts and legal principles, that our cases have deemed to be virtually unchallengeable." Key v. State, 891 So. 2d 353, 376 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). As the circuit court inKey aptly noted:
Thus, the photographs were properly admitted into evidence. See Key v. State, 891 So. 2d 353, 373 (Ala.Crim.App. 2002). Also, victim-impact evidence is admissible at the penalty phase of a capital-murder trial.
The burden to establish ineffectiveness of counsel "is particularly stringent when a defendant enters a guilty plea." Key v. State, 891 So. 2d 353, 374 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002), affirmed Ex parte Key, 891 So. 2d 384 (Ala. 2004), cert. denied, Key v. Alabama, 543 U.S. 1005, 125 S.Ct. 608, 160 L.Ed. 2d 466 (2004). Revells has not met this burden.