Ex parte Hinton, 172 So.3d 348 (Alabama 2012)

On February 24, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari review and vacated this Court's judgment affirming the circuit court's denial of Hinton's claim that his trial counsel had been ineffective for not hiring a qualified firearms-identification expert for his defense. Hinton v. Alabama, 571 U.S. , 134 S.Ct. 1081, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2014). The Supreme Court concluded that counsel's failure to know that the statutory-funding limit had been lifted constituted deficient performance under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), but that no Alabama court had yet addressed the proper prejudice inquiry under Strickland: Whether there is a reasonable [*362] probability that, had Hinton's trial counsel known that the statutory-funding limit for experts [**3] had been lifted, counsel would have hired an expert other than the expert he hired -- i.e., an expert who would have instilled in the jury a reasonable doubt as to Hinton's guilt. Therefore, the Supreme Court remanded this case for an Alabama court to determine whether Hinton was prejudiced by his counsel's deficient performance.In accordance with the United States Supreme Court's opinion, we remanded this case for the circuit court to make specific written findings of fact regarding the prejudice inquiry set out by the United States Supreme Court. Hinton v. State, [Ms. CR-04-0940, June 13, 2014] 172 So. 3d 355, 2014 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 48 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014) (opinion after remand by the United States Supreme Court). On remand, the circuit court, in a well reasoned order, found that counsel, in fact, would have hired a different and more qualified expert had counsel known that the statutory-funding limit had been lifted and that there was a reasonable probability that the testimony of a different and more qualified expert would have instilled in the jury a reasonable doubt as to Hinton's guilt. Therefore, the circuit court granted Hinton's Rule 32 petition.