Home >

March 15, 2011
For More Information, contact:
Luther Strange
Joy Patterson (334) 242-7491
Alabama Attorney General
Suzanne Webb (334) 242-7351
Page 1 of 1


(MONTGOMERY) – Attorney General Luther Strange announced that the
Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals Friday has upheld the murder and first-
degree assault convictions of a Haleyville woman. Katrina Drake Alexander,
now 41, was found guilty by a Winston County jury on June 17, 2010, of the
murder of her husband’s ex-wife, and the shooting assault of the murder
victim’s step father-in-law.
Evidence was presented at trial that Alexander retrieved the gun of
her husband, who was a Haleyville police officer, from his police locker and
shot and killed Renee Perry, her husband’s ex-wife, at the victim’s home.
Evidence at trial also showed Alexander twice shot Freddie Barnett, the step
father-in-law of the woman she killed, who was also at Perry’s home.
Alexander received a sentence of life imprisonment for the murder
conviction and a concurrent 20-year term of imprisonment for the first-degree
assault conviction.
The case was prosecuted at the trial level by Winston County District
Attorney Jack Bostick’s Office, and the conviction was handled on appeal by
Attorney General Strange’s Appeals Division.
After her conviction and sentencing, Alexander sought to have her
conviction reversed on appeal. The Attorney General’s office argued to the
Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals that it should affirm Alexander’s
convictions. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the State, and handed
down its decision on Friday, March 11, that both of Alexander’s convictions
were to be upheld.
For additional details, see attached ruling by the Alabama Court of
Criminal Appeals.

501 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 (334) 242-7300
www.ago.state.al.us Rel: 03/11/2011
Notice: This unpublished memorandum should not be cited as precedent. See Rule 54, Ala.R.App.P. Rule 54(d),
states, in part , that this memorandum “shall have no precedential value and shal l not be cited in arguments or
briefs and shal l not be used by any cour t within this state, except for the purpose of establishin g the application
of the doctrin e of law o f the case, res judicata , collateral estoppel, double jeopardy, or procedura l bar. “
Court of Criminal Appeals
State of Alabama
Judicial Building, 300 Dexter Avenue
P. O. Box 301555
Montgomery, A L 36130-1555
Presiding Judge Clerk
J . ELIZABETH KELLUM Assistant Clerk
(334) 229-0751
J . MICHAEL JOINER Fax (334) 229-0521
CR-09-1537 Winston Circuit Court CC-07-189
Katrin a Drake Alexander v. Stat e of Alabam a
WELCH, Presiding Judge.
Katrin a Drake Alexander was convicted of murder, a
violatio n of ß 13A-6-2, Ala. Code 1 975 , and convicte d o f
first-degre e assault, a violatio n of ß 13A-6-20, Ala. Code 1975

The trial court sentenced Alexander to serve a term o f
life imprisonment for the murder conviction and sentenced
Alexander to serve a term of 20 years ‘ imprisonment for he r
first-degre e assault conviction, to b e served concurrently .
The trial court ordered Alexander to pa y a n assessment of
$6,235.20 to the Crime Victims Compensation Fund. No post-
tria l motions were filed. This appeal followed.
The following evidence was elicited at trial . Randy
Stults a dispatcher at the Haleyville Police Department
testified to the following. Stults worked wit h Ron Alexander ,
1 who was also a dispatcher, and knew Ron’s wife, Katrina
Alexander. On October 30, 2007, Katrina came by the dispatch
office sometime after lunch, went to Ron’s locker, and then
left . At approximately 2:32 p.m., Stults received a cal l from
Katrin a on the police dispatch system. Katrina told him, “I
have shot Renee [Perry], and I’ve wounded him [Freddie
Barnett] . I didn’t mean to.” (R. 134.)
Chris Perry testified to the following. On October 30,
2007, Chris was married to Renee Perry, and they lived in a
mobile home park. Ron Alexander was Renee’s ex-husband. On
that date, Chris was at home with his stepfather Freddie
Barnett, Renee, and Renee’s brother Jamie. At approximately
2:30 p.m., Barnett told Renee and Chris that Katrina had
pulled up outside. Chris went outside to ask Katrina what she
wanted, and she stated that she wanted to speak with Renee.
Chris went back into the kitchen, and Renee went out the door.
Chris heard a gunshot and saw Renee fall to the ground. Chris
heard more gunshots and saw Barnett diving into the door,
saying, “She shot Renee, and she shot me, and she’s coming in
the house. Y’all run.” (R. 143.) Chris ran out of the back
door of the mobile home and saw Katrina leaving in her car.
Freddie Barnett testified to the following. Barnett saw
Katrin a shoot Renee and testified that Katrina subsequently
shot him twice. Barnett testified that one bullet exited his
body through his back, and the second bullet exploded inside
hi s body when i t hi t hi s ribs. Barnett has had several bullet
fragments removed from his chest.
Office r Michael Glasheen with the Haleyville Police
Department testified to the following. Officer Glasheen was
working as a patrolman on October 30, 2007, when he was
dispatched to the Alexander residence. When Office r Glasheen
arrived , he saw Ron standing in the front yard talking on the
cel l phone with Katrina. Ron told Officer Glasheen that he
thought that Katrina had shot his ex-wife, Renee, and that
Katrin a was upset and was stopped in her vehicle on the side
of the road because she couldn’t travel any further. Ron got
i n Officer Glasheen’s vehicle, and they drove to Katrina’s
vehicle . When the men arrived, Officer Glasheen got out of
hi s vehicle and saw that the gun was on the roof of Katrina’s
car, and he subsequently took Katrina into custody.
2 The State presented testimony that Renee Perry died as a
result of the gunshot wound which she receive d to he r head.
Katrin a Alexander testified to the following on he r own
behalf . Katrina testified that on the dat e of the shooting
that she was taking Lexapro, Xanax, Trazadone, Phenergan,
Lortab, Toprol, and Pepcid . Katrina testified that i n August
of 2007 that she and Renee got into an argument over an
allegation that Chris had molested a child, and Katrin a did
not think that children should be i n the home with him. The
women began fighting, and the police were notified.
Ultimately , Katrina was charged with assaulting Renee.
Katrin a testified that the da y before the shooting , Ron told
her that he wanted a divorce and that upset her. On the date
of the incident , Katrina testified that she went to get Ron’s
gun because she wanted to scare Renee.
Alexander argues that there i s insufficient evidence to
support her conviction s for murder and first-degre e assault.
Specifically , Alexander argues that she was involuntarily
intoxicate d and unable to form the requisite intent required
to commit the crimes.
However, Alexander failed to present this argument to the
trial court when she moved for a judgment of acquittal at the
close of the State’ s case.
“‘Review on appeal i s restricted to question s and issues
properly and timely raised at trial.’ ” Ex parte Coulliette,
857 So. 2d 793, 794 (Ala. 2003), citing Newsome v. State, 570
So. 2d 703, 717 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989). “‘An issue raised for
the first time on appeal i s no t subject to appellate review
because i t ha s not been properly preserved and presented.'”
Id. at 794, citing Pate v. State, 601 So. 2d 210, 213 (Ala.
Crim. App. 1992). “‘[T]o preserve an issue for appellate
review, i t must be presented to the trial court by a timely
and specific motion setting out the specific grounds i n
support thereof.'” McKinney v. State, 654 So. 2d 95, 99 (Ala.
Crim. App. 1995)(citation omitted). “When a specific ground
of objection is stated, al l other unstated grounds of
objection are waived. ” State v. Holloway, 307 So. 2d 13, 17
(Ala. 1975). See also Murray v. State, 494 So. 2d 891 (Ala.
Crim. App. 1986).
3 In this case, Alexander was indicted for three charges:
capita l murder1, murder, and first-degree assault. When
Alexander moved for a judgment of acquittal, she did so based
on the elements of the capital murder charge presented against
her and argued that the State had failed to prove intent as to
murder and first-degree assault. However, Alexander did not
argue that she was involuntarily intoxicated by her
prescription s and that this defense negated the intent
elements of murder and first-degree assault. (R. 466-467.)
Moreover, defense counsel stated the following before the
trial court charged the jury,
“MR. SALVAGIO [Defense counsel]: Yes, sir . And
I wish I now had done i t before closing arguments
because what I wanted to ask you was we’re not
pleading guilty by reason of intoxication. I didn’t
want that charge. I just don’t think i t fits . And
now he’s mentioned it , but I mean, still , I mean,
that’ s why I wanted to talk to you. I mean, I
should have probably, you know, in hindsight,
insisted that we do i t beforehand . But I don’t want
the charge. I mean, I don’t think that charge fits
i t in any manner.”
(R. 657.)
Therefore, not only did defense counsel fail to state
involuntary intoxication as grounds for the motion for a
judgment of acquittal at the close of the case, but also
defense counsel’s discussion of intoxication wit h the trial
court before i t charge d the jury reflects that the defense did
not believe that the defense of involuntary intoxication
applied to the facts of Alexander’s case at all . For the
reasons stated above, this argument is not properly before
this Court for review. Therefore, the judgment of the trial
court is due to be affirmed.
Windom, Kellum, Burke, and Joiner, JJ., concur.
1The indictment alleged that Alexander committed murder
pursuant to ß 13A-5-40(a)(14), Ala. Code 1975.