Davis v. State

Decided August 25, 2006

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · decided 2006-08-25

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"Davis's most troubling claim is that counsel failed to investigate and present mitigation evidence at the penalty phase. The evidence Davis alleges should have been discovered and presented is powerful. Had this issue not been procedurally barred we would be compelled to grant relief and order a new sentencing hearing."”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Ex Parte Davis

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2006-08-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently October 2024

1 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BASCHAB, Judge,

¶1concurring in the result.

¶2The majority properly concludes that the appellant’s ineffective-assistance-of-*531counsel claims are procedurally barred. Nevertheless, it then proceeds to discuss the merits of one of the appellant’s ineffective-assistance claims and to conclude that, “[h]ad this issue not been procedurally barred we would be compelled to grant relief and order a new sentencing hearing.” 9 So.3d at 522. Because the appellant’s ineffective-assistance claims are procedurally barred, this discussion and conclusion are inappropriate and are nothing more than unnecessary dicta. Instead, we should simply state that the appellant’s ineffective-assistance claims are procedurally barred. Accordingly, I respectfully concur in the result.