Background
James McGowan, sentenced to death for the capital murders of an elderly couple, sought postconviction relief under Rule 32. His petition raised numerous claims concerning trial and appellate representation and asserted that he is intellectually disabled and therefore constitutionally ineligible for execution under Atkins v. Virginia.
The Conecuh Circuit Court summarily dismissed the non-Atkins claims and held an evidentiary hearing on intellectual disability. It concluded that McGowan had not carried his burden. McGowan challenged both the procedural treatment of his other claims and the evidentiary determination.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. It found the non-Atkins claims insufficiently pleaded, procedurally precluded, or meritless under Rule 32 standards. Postconviction pleadings must allege specific facts that, if true, establish entitlement to relief; conclusions and claims that could have been raised earlier do not require an evidentiary hearing.
After reviewing the expert and historical evidence, the court also upheld the finding that McGowan failed to prove intellectual disability by a preponderance of the evidence. It rejected his challenge to the circuit court's substantial adoption of the State's proposed order because the record did not show that the findings were not the judge's own considered decision.
The opinion’s analysis provides additional detail: “47-48. Dr. deFrancisco also testified that "McGowan's capacity to conform his conduct to the law was substantially impaired because of his frontal-lobe injury and his low IQ" and that "his mental age is a mitigating circumstance," as well as that he was "under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance because … [he] had had 30 'hits of crack cocaine in a 6- or 7- hour period," which would have increased his "problems controlling himself." Id. at 948. McGowan's middle-school principal testified about McGowan being poor, having great academic struggles, that he was only in 10th grade when he "dropped out of school at the age of 20 or 21," and that even then, "he associated with middle- school children." Id. Dr. deFrancisco also testified that McGowan's frontal lobe brain injury would be another mitigating circumstance. Even McGowan's back injury was discussed by McGowan's middle-school principal, who testified that McGowan had come to see him in 1994 and told him about his back injury and surgery and showed him the "scars" on his back. Both McGowan's sister, Melba Mitchell, and his brother, Gene McGowan, testified in detail about their abusive childhood, including that "their father beat McGowan from the time [he] was three years old, … sometimes three or four times a week, always with a razor strap[,] … [and made] his legs ble[e]d when McGowan was six years old," that McGowan was left home alone "for a month" when he was only eight or nine years old after his mother left with another man and his father found McGowan sitting by himself "in the living room crying, wanting Mama," and that his stepmother "starved him." Id. at 949. Mitchell told the jury that, on one occasion, McGowan's stepmother had his stepbrothers "hold him" while her father "whipped him until the blood run down his legs just for taking a pickle." (TR. 2218.) Mitchell also testified that her sister Mary also abused McGowan, and that, on one occasion, Mary "hit him in the head with a bag of silver dollars." (TR. 2227.) Gene McGowan testified that their father was so physically abusive that he "lied about [his] age and … went in the military" to get out of his”
Key Takeaways
- A Rule 32 petitioner must plead claim-specific facts and overcome applicable preclusion rules.
- An Atkins claim requires proof of the governing intellectual-functioning, adaptive-functioning, and onset requirements.
- Adoption of a party's proposed order is not reversible by itself absent evidence that the court failed to exercise independent judgment.
Why It Matters
The opinion is a detailed reference for Alabama capital postconviction practice. Counsel must connect each constitutional theory to admissible facts, identify why it was unavailable earlier, and develop intellectual-disability evidence across testing, adaptive functioning, development, and competing expert explanations.
Its proposed-order discussion also underscores record building. A challenge needs more than textual similarity; the appellant must identify circumstances showing that the order does not reflect independent judicial evaluation.