CALL 205.538.3340

The Law Office of J.D. Lloyd Logo Because There’s Hope After the Trial


After The Trial Blog

The After The Trial blog presents insights on ongoing and recent trials around the state of Alabama, including weekly criminal law round-ups.

Alabama Criminal Law Round-Up November 9th, 2015

J.D. Lloyd - Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Here are a few of the biggest criminal law stories from around the state of Alabama over the past week:

If you or someone you know has been convicted of wrongful criminal charges, there is hope after the trial. Contact us today by clicking HERE.

Alabama Criminal Law Round-Up November 2nd, 2015

J.D. Lloyd - Tuesday, November 03, 2015
Here are a few of the biggest criminal law stories from around the state of Alabama over the past week:

If you or someone you know has been convicted of wrongful criminal charges, there is hope after the trial. Contact us today by clicking HERE.

Alabama Supreme Court Ruling Makes Illegal Hunting Prosecutions Tougher for the State

J.D. Lloyd - Saturday, October 31, 2015
The Alabama Supreme Court released an interesting opinion reversing some hunting-offense convictions today. In Ex parte Ex parte W.F., W.L.C., and R.J.J. the Court threw out the youthful offenders convictions for hunting after dark, hunting from a public road, and hunting with the aid of an automobile.
As deer season approaches, all the hunters out there might want to pay close attention:
Basically, a conservation officer believed he heard shots being fired from a truck driven by these defendants around 6:30/6:45 at night. He didn't see anyone fire a weapon or even a muzzle flash --essentially, he only heard what he thought were shots fired from a gun. No shell casings were recovered and the deputy sheriff that later investigated couldn't determine whether shots had recently been fired from the rifle found in the defendant's vehicle.
The defense argued the State couldn't make a prima facie case based on this paltry evidence. The State relied on Rogers v. State, 491 So. 2d 987 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985) to defend the sufficiency of its showing, which held that the State presents a sufficient case of "night hunting" when it shows "that the accused (1) is in an area which deer or other protected animals are thought to frequent, (2) has in his possession a light, and (3) has in his possession a weapon or other device suitable for taking, capturing, or killing an animal protected by state law, (4) at night." The circuit court and Court of Criminal Appeals agreed, relying on Rogers for all the offenses.
The Court rejected Rogers on the theory that attempts to commit these hunting offenses require more than the Rogers standard provides. The Court's discussion here is an interesting look into  "the commencement of consummation" of a criminal offense, focusing on the holding of ATM v. State, 804 So. 2d 171 (Ala. 2000). Because Rogers did not accurately encompass "attempt" jurisprudence, the Court overruled that decision. In applying the accurate law regarding attempts, the Court found the State's case insufficient and vacated and rendered the convictions.
This case is a great standard for assessing the sufficiency of "attempt" prosecutions.


If you or someone you know has been convicted of wrongful criminal charges, there is hope after the trial. Contact us today by clicking HERE.

10-22-2015 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Summary

J.D. Lloyd - Friday, October 23, 2015

John A Cunningham (CR-14-14993)

Cunningham failed to register as a sex offender and was originally sentenced to 30 months of imprisonment followed by supervised release.  After he was released from prison, Cunningham violated the terms of his supervised release and was sentenced to another eight months in prison followed by an additional 24 months of supervised release.  Cunningham once again violated the terms of his supervised release after serving his term in prison and was sentenced to another 14 months in prison followed by 14 months of supervised release.  Cunningham was released from prison after serving his term, but he violated his supervised release for the third time.  Cunningham was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment after his supervised release was revoked for the third time.  Cunningham argued at his revocation hearing that his revocation sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment was illegal because it exceeded the remaining 14 months he had left of his supervised release after his last revocation.  The district court heard Cunningham’s argument but still sentenced him to 24 months in prison with no supervision to follow.  Cunningham appealed.


The Court held that a defendant may be sentenced to the felony class limits under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) upon each revocation of supervised release without taking into account any previously served prison terms for revocation of supervised release.  The Court recognized that several other circuit courts had already rejected arguments like the one in Cunningham’s case.  The Court refused to import the language from 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h), stating an aggregate limitation on revocation imprisonment, into the language of § 3583(e)(3).  The court explained that the amendment history of § 3583(e)(3) supports the legislature’s intent to not limit this section by aggregate limitations like those in § 3583(h).  Accordingly, the court affirmed Cunningham’s sentence to 24 months of imprisonment.

Ellisa Martinez (CR-11-13295)

The 11th Circuit previously affirmed Martinez’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) for knowingly transmitting a threatening communication.  The Supreme Court, however, vacated the opinion and remanded the case to the 11th Circuit so the Court could consider Martinez’s case in light of Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015).  The Supreme Court in Elonis held that a jury instruction stating “that the Government need prove only that a reasonable person would regard [the defendant’s] communications as threats” was error because it failed to address the defendant’s mental state at the time of the alleged crime, which is a necessary element to support a conviction.  In Martinez’s case, she asserted that her indictment was insufficient because it failed to allege that she subjectively intended to convey a threat to others.  Martinez also asserted that § 875(c) was unconstitutionally overbroad if it did not require subjective intent.


The Court rejected both of Martinez’s arguments, relying on United States v. Alaboud, 347 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2003), which held that the inquiry for a conviction under § 875(c) is an objective one.  Based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Elonis, the Court held that Martinez’s indictment was insufficient because it did not allege an essential element of § 875(c), specifically being that Martinez intentionally made the statement as a threat to injure others.  Therefore, the Court vacated Martinez’s conviction and sentence and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss Martinez’s indictment without prejudice.

Wayne Walker (CR-15-10710)

Walker was convicted of one count of manufacturing counterfeit money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 471.  On February 28, 2014, two police officers were working the night shift and received information that a man with an outstanding warrant, Michael Upshaw, could be found at Walker’s house.  The two officers went to Walker’s house at 9:00 pm that night and knocked on the doors of Walker’s home but no one answered.  The officers returned at 11:00 pm that night and knocked again but no one answered.  At this point, the officers noticed a car parked in the open-sided carport that had not been in the driveway earlier.  At 5:00 am the following morning the officers drove past Walker’s home once again and noticed some house lights were on as well as the dome light inside of the car parked in the carport.  The officers walked up the driveway and approached the car, noticing that a person was inside of the car.  The person inside of the car ended up being Walker.  When the officers told Walker they were looking for Upshaw, Walker told the officers that they “were more than welcome” to go into the house and look for him.  The officers entered the house and saw counterfeit $100 bills sitting in plain view on a shelf.  The officers subsequently arrested Walker on probable cause.  Walker appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence of the counterfeit bills found in his home because the officers did not comply with the “knock and talk” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement and entered his home at an unreasonable hour.


The Court held that the officers complied with the Fourth Amendment and acted reasonably when approaching the car where Walker was found.  The Court rejected Walker’s argument that the officers exceeded the scope of the knock and talk exception when they approached Walker’s vehicle because the officers did not objectively reveal a purpose to search the vehicle and because where the officers approached the vehicle underneath the open-sided carport was not outside of the geographic limit on the knock and talk exception.  The Court also held that the officer’s actions were not unreasonable due to the early morning hour because the surrounding circumstances made the actions reasonable.  Even though it was early in the morning, the officers saw lights on inside of the home as well as the car, and it was not unreasonable for the officers to think someone was inside of the car.  Therefore, the Court held that the district court did not err in denying Walker’s motion to suppress evidence of the counterfeit currency found in his home and affirmed the district court’s decision.

Raymond Edward Braun (CR-13-15013)

In 2013, Braun was sentenced under the “violent felony” provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).  Braun was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm once before in 2003, but during his 2013 trial, Braun objected to being qualified as an armed career criminal under the ACCA because he asserted that he did not have the required three prior violent felonies to be classified as such.  In Braun’s 2003 conviction, the court relied on a Presentence Report describing Braun’s prior convictions when sentencing Braun as an armed career criminal, and Braun did not object to the facts in the report or his sentencing under the ACCA.  However, in Braun’s 2013 trial, he objected to the court’s reliance on the 2003 Presentence Report submitted by the government to establish the three requisite violent felonies necessary to sentence him under the ACCA.  Braun argued that the Supreme Court decisions in Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005), and Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), disallowed the government to rely on a Presentence Report to establish that Braun was an armed career criminal.  Despite his objections, Braun was sentenced as an armed career criminal.  Braun appealed.


The Court held that the government failed to prove that Braun had three prior violent felony convictions that were necessary to support sentencing under the ACCA as an armed career criminal.  The Court found that the government did not prove that two of Braun’s four prior convictions – aggravated battery on a pregnant woman and battery on a law enforcement officer – were violent felonies.  First, the Court relied on Descamps when deciding whether Braun’s prior convictions qualified as violent felonies under the ACCA.  Based on Descamps, the Court realized that it could only look to the elements of the crime and not the underlying facts of the conduct that led to Braun’s conviction.  The Court also recognized that some statutes can be divided into multiple, alternative versions of the crime. Second, the Court relied on Shepard to determine which documents it could use to decide whether Braun’s prior convictions were considered violent felonies.  Examples of documents allowed in Shepard include the charging document, a plea agreement or transcript of the discussion between the judge and defendant including facts of the plea, or a comparable judicial record containing this information.

The Court first looked at Braun’s conviction for aggravated battery on a pregnant woman.  The Court determined that the statute for this crime was divided and could be committed three different ways under Florida law.  Because the statute was divisible, the Court used Shepard documents to determine which version of the crime Braun committed.  The Court held that the 2003 Presentence Report, however, could not be relied on because under Shepard and Descamps, the court may not use a document from an unrelated proceeding as a substitute for a Shepard document.  The Court, therefore, determined that Braun’s conviction for aggravated battery on a pregnant woman was not a violent felony.  Looking at Braun’s conviction for battery on a law enforcement officer, the Court used the same analysis it used for the aggravated battery on a pregnant woman conviction and determined that this conviction also did not qualify as a violent felony.  In conclusion, the Court held that the government could not prove that Braun had been convicted of three violent felonies in the past, and therefore the Court reversed and remanded this case.


J.D. Lloyd - Saturday, September 05, 2015

Ex Parte Jason Dean Tulley

J.D. Lloyd - Saturday, September 05, 2015
Click the link below for more details on this recent Alabama Supreme Court decision. Tulley - AL SC - REVERSED


J.D. Lloyd - Saturday, July 25, 2015

Alabama Courts Finally Adopt US Supreme Court Precedent 12 Years Later

J.D. Lloyd - Saturday, July 25, 2015
*This post contains more “mature” content than my usual posts, so please be aware before reading on* Law and justice concept, legal code Williams v. State of Alabama Background In two cases released on July 2, 2015, we see the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals finally have a chance to apply the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Lawrence v. Texas to a challenge of Alabama’s sexual misconduct statute, sec. 13A-6-65. In Lawrence, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas’ anti-sodomy statute which only applied to homosexual conduct was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Williams, the Court of Criminal Appeals explained: “Section 13A-6-65(a)(3) provides: ‘A person commits the crime of sexual misconduct if … [h]e or she engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person under circumstances other than those covered by Sections 13A-6-63 and 13A-6-64[, Ala. Code 1975]. Consent is no defense to a prosecution under this subdivision.’ The commentary to that statute notes that the specific subdivision ‘was changed by the legislature to make all homosexual conduct criminal, and consent is no defense.’ See Commentary to § 13A-6-65, Ala. Code 1975. Section 13A-6-60(2), Ala. Code 1975, defines ‘deviate sexual intercourse’ as ‘[a]ny act of sexual gratification between persons not married to each other involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another.’ Williams – Conviction Reversed Williams was alleged to have sodomized another man against his will. He was prosecuted for first degree sodomy. At trial, Williams testified in his own defense and explained to the jury that he and the other man had engaged in consensual conduct. While the parties discussed how the jury should be instructed, the Court considered whether a sexual misconduct instruction should be given as a lesser-included offense of first-degree sodomy. Williams objected, arguing that in his case, a sexual misconduct instruction would allow the jury to convict him of consensual sodomy. Williams argued this conviction would be unconstitutional under Lawrence. The judge overruled the objection and Williams was convicted of sexual misconduct. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and rendered Williams’ conviction. The Court concluded that the sexual misconduct statute was unconstitutional under Lawrence as applied to Williams’ consensual conduct. Wesson – Conviction Affirmed Wesson was charged with engaging in acts of sodomy with a woman against her will. He was indicted on the charge of first-degree sodomy and sexual misconduct. Wesson pleaded guilty to the sexual misconduct charge and the sodomy charge was dismissed. He, like Williams, argued the sexual misconduct statue was unconstitutional as applied to him and appealed the constitutionality of his conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. First, the Court rejected Wesson’s argument that the sexual misconduct statute was unconstitutional on it’s face. The Court concluded that Wesson didn’t raise that argument before the trial court, so they weren’t going to consider it on appeal. Next, the Court concluded that Wesson’s as-applied challenge under Lawrence was doomed to fail because he could not demonstrate that his conduct fell within the bounds of protected conduct described by Lawrence — namely, he couldn’t prove that the sex acts that occurred were consensual. Because he could not, Lawrence would not provide him any relief. Consent is Now a Defense After 12 years, an Alabama court has finally recognized that Lawrence prohibits the criminalization of consensual conduct covered by sec. 13A-6-65(a)(3).

SCOTUS – Administrative Searches – Los Angeles v. Patel

J.D. Lloyd - Saturday, July 25, 2015
The Court today released an interesting opinion on administrative searches in Los Angeles v. Patel. Under the Los Angeles Municipal Code, hotel operators are required to keep certain information in their hotel registry for 90 days. The Code requires the operators to allow the LAPD to inspect these registries upon request, or they could be charged with a misdemeanor. The hotels owners filed a facial challenge under the Fourth Amendment. The district court dismissed the challenge, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding this statutory scheme authorized unconstitutional administrative searches. AFFIRMED. The Court noted that the statutory scheme forced hotel operators with an unconstitutional “Comply or Else” dilemma without affording them any opportunity for administrative review of the validity of the search. The Court concluded that an administrative search scheme that does not create a mechanism for operators to seek administrative review of “on-the-spot” searches violates the Fourth Amendment as it authorizes an unconstitutional search. The Court noted that any administrative search carried out with an administrative warrant or as an exception to the warrant requirement would comply with the Fourth Amendment. The opinion is available here:


J.D. Lloyd - Saturday, July 25, 2015

Recent Posts


pinson alabama ring v arizona public assistance fraud Joshua Reese hurst mandamus brendan dassey, steve avery, making a murderer, scotus, netflix theft foley alabama editorial trussville alabama mountain brook alabama street racing serial blount county alabama bessemer alabama OJ Simpson Made in America fraudulent checks second amendment utah supreme court Tracie Todd baldwin county alabama fake kidnapping, marion county morris alabama implied consent huntsville jerry bohannon shelby county death penalty keith v state south carolina brady v maryland animal cruelty arson utah v strieff lauderdale county alabama drug smuggling eric sterling Adamsville alabama christmas shooting birchfield v north dakota court systems, bernard v north dakota legende v state Tommy Arthur gadsden alabama shooting stoves v state shooting death Stephen Breyer hoax destructive devices clarence thomas avondale alabama ex parte briseno endangerment of a child john earle redfearn IV v state hanceville alabama self defense mcwilliams v dunn gun control fourth amendment kidnapping Xavier Beasley concealed carry murder drug possession, morgan county alabama tarrant alabama springville alabama Walker County Alabama eugene lee jones v state sarah koenig Benn v State warrior alabama maryland court of special appeals edwards v arizona judicial override Gardendale Alabama shoplifting Ingmire v State st clair county alabama attempted murder criminal justice reform, Kareem Dacar Gaymon Malone v State domestic violence battles v state nicholas hawkins steve avery Thomas Hardiman blountsville alabama pelham alabama Alonzo Ephraim texas criminal justice prostitution sting social media constitutional violations fairfield alabama, alfonso morris armed robbery abduction LWOP New York Times drug seizure Marengo County Alabama montgomery alabama department of justice Donald Trump, kimberly alabama birmingham alabama sheffield v state crime of passion kenneth eugene billups dekalb county alabama economic growth ake v oklahoma debit card skimming scams florence alabama identity theft campbell v state scotus illegal gun carry Fentanyl benjamin todd acton sixth amendment Easter oneonta alabama beylund v north dakota court of criminal appeal releases Sardis Alabama domestic abuse albertville alabama burglary lethal injection limestone county alabama illegal gambling lethal injection drugs baltimore city circuit court CCA update sexual assault Briarwood Presbyterian Church habeas corpus relief lamar county Dylann Roof forced isolation alabama law enforcement agency hurst v florida fort payne alabama theft of property mobile alabama warrantless blood draws assault huntsville alabama Neil Gorsuch Shonda Walker, stanley brent chapman state of arizona moore v texas npr breaking and entering executions car accident negligent homicide death penalty, the mannequin challenge hoover alabama department of justice, brian fredick lucas home repair fraud smith v state fraud state of alabama Eutaw Alabama christian guitierez underage drinking Lucky D Arcade alabama felony assaults constitutional law, capital offenses dothan alabama heritage christian university Kay Ivey cullman alabama gun rights SCOTUS, terell corey mcmullin sentencing law and policy blog summaries road rage operation crackdown capital punishment narcotics investigation dora alabama levins v state homicide rate robberies mike gilotti mount olive alabama Guy Terrell Junior decatur alabama aziz sayyed homicide Wesley Adam Whitworth drug activity strickland v washington Jefferson County Alabama eighth amendment, Hillary Clinton, embezzlement apprendi v new jersey mccalla alabama adger alabama brookside alabama eleventh circuit ruling peyton pruitt Samuel Alito ferguson missouri parole adnan syed, unlawful manufacturing betton v state moving violations drug trafficking, Etowah County Alabama, minor offenses midazolam drug crimes 2016 election, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 brendan dassey pruitt v state asia mcclain Woods v State operation bullseye bailey v us talladega superspeedway towles v state § 13A-3-23 mulga alabama nathan woods criminal mischief § 13A-3-23(d) immunity hearing alabama criminal law roundup anniston alabama, banville v state OJ Simpson calhoun county alabama Mike Hubbard Rule 32 heflin alabama drug busts debtor prison William Pryor boaz alabama pell city alabama tuscaloosa alabama Alabaster alabama alabama supreme court church robberies madison alabama fultondale alabama bomb threat capital murder abuse netflix Glaze v State hall v florida Justice Sotomayor court of criminal appeals US Supreme Court Update aiding and abetting russell calhoun abandonment greene county alabama making a murderer cherokee county alabama rainbow city alabama West Alabama Pleasant Grove Alabama



These recoveries and testimonials are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family, or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among  other factors. Furthermore, no representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Get Free Legal Advice  Contact us for a complimentary legal consultation

I am interested in scheduling a free legal consultation and receiving additional information.

Submitting Form...

The server encountered an error.

Thank you, your  entry has been  received.

© 2017 The Law Office of J.D. Lloyd, LLC. All Rights Reserved. |


As required by Rule 7.2(e), Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, no representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.