CALL 205.538.3340

The Law Office of J.D. Lloyd Logo

AfterTheTrial.com... Because There’s Hope After the Trial

BLOG

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.

CCA Update - Hurst Mandamus

J.D. Lloyd - Tuesday, June 21, 2016

 

Friday we saw the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals uphold the constitutionality of Alabama’s capital-sentencing scheme in light of a ruling by Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Tracie Todd that the scheme was unconstitutional under the recent US Supreme Court decision of Hurst v. Florida.

 

Too long, don’t want to read version: Alabama’s capital scheme is not unconstitutional under Hurst, but Hurst will prevent judicial override in cases where (a) the guilt phase verdict does not automatically establish an aggravating circumstance under § 13A-5-49, and (b) the jury finds in the penalty phase that no aggravating circumstance exists beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Ex parte State of Alabama


In re: Kenneth Eugene Billups (CR-15-0619)

In re: Stanley Brent Chapman (CR-15-0622)

In re: Terell Corey McMullin (CR-15-0623)

In re: Benjamin Todd Acton (CR-15-0624)


Background

 

This case involves the ruling from Judge Tracie Todd of the Jefferson Circuit Court in which she held that the Alabama capital sentencing scheme is unconstitutional. In unrelated cases, Billups and Acton are charged with capital murder-robbery, a violation of § 13A-5-40(a)(2). In cases involving the same murders, Chapman and McMullin are each charged with two count capital murder-robbery (§ 13A-5-40(a)(2)), two counts each of capital murder-burglary (§ 13A-5-40(a)(4), and one count each of capital murder for killing more than one person in the same course of conduct (§ 13A-5-40(a)(10)).

 

Prior to their trials, the defendants moved to bar the imposition of the death penalty on the grounds that Alabama’s capital scheme is unconstitutional under Hurst. The Court granted the motion, finding the Alabama capital scheme unconstitutional. The State filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the Court of Criminal Appeals to order Judge Todd to vacate her order.


Holding

 

The Court begins its analysis by reviewing SCOTUS’s rulings in Apprendi v. New Jersey and Ring v. Arizona, emphasizing how Apprendi holds “any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Ring simply applied Apprendi to Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme. In looking at Hurst, the Court of Criminal Appeals observed that the Hurst opinion, like the Ring opinion, did nothing more than apply Apprendi to Florida’s capital sentencing scheme. The CCA explained:

 

“The [Hurst] Court noted that "[t]he analysis the Ring Court applied to Arizona's sentencing scheme applies equally to Florida's." Hurst, 577 U.S. at ___, 136 S.Ct. at 621-22. Florida's capital sentencing scheme as it then existed was similar to Arizona's in that the maximum sentence authorized by a jury verdict finding a defendant guilty of first-degree murder was life imprisonment without the possibility of parole; the defendant became eligible for the death penalty only if the trial court found the existence of an aggravating circumstance and found that there were insufficient mitigating circumstances to outweigh the aggravating circumstances.”


Ex parte State at * 14. The CCA concluded that Hurst “did nothing more than apply its previous holdings in Apprendi and Ring to Florida's capital sentencing scheme. The Court did not announce a new rule of constitutional law, nor did it expand its holdings in Apprendi and Ring. As the State correctly argues, "Hurst did not add anything of substance to Ring." (Petitions, p. 6.)”

 

The CCA zeroed in on how Ring and Hurst, applying Apprendi, focus on death penalty “eligibility,” the objective component of a death sentence. This, of course, is distinct from the subjective component of whether a death sentence is actually appropriate in a given case. The Court observed that the Alabama scheme only requires the jury to find one aggravating factor under § 13A-5-49 in order for a defendant to be “eligible” for a death sentence.

 

Under Apprendi, Ring, and Hurst, the crucial question is -- does the required finding that an aggravating circumstance exists expose the defendant to a greater punishment than that authorized by the jury's guilty verdict alone? In Alabama, unlike Arizona and Florida, the answer to that question depends on the capital offense at issue.

 

The CCA discussed how the Alabama capital statute includes “overlap” and “non-overlap” capital offense. A guilt-phase conviction of an “overlap” offenses automatically establishes the one aggravating circumstances under § 13A-5-49 required to impose a death sentence under § 13A-5-47. For example, a conviction of capital murder-robbery under § 13A-5-40(a)(2) “overlaps” with the aggravating factor that the murder was committed during a robbery pursuant to § 13A-5-49(4). On the other hand, a conviction for a non-overlap offense, such as murder committed by shooting from a vehicle, does not “overlap” with an aggravating factor found in § 13A-5-49.

 

In looking at “overlap” offenses, the Court concluded that there is no Hurst problem because the guilt-phase determination finds beyond reasonable doubt an aggravating factor under § 13A-5-49, which would make the defendant death-eligible under Apprendi, Ring, and Hurst. Likewise, the Court held that in non-overlap cases, if a jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt that an aggravator exists, he too is death eligible under Apprendi, Ring, and Hurst.

 

The Court recognized that Apprendi, Ring, and Hurst will foreclose a death sentence in a situation where a defendant is convicted of a “non-overlap” offense and the jury in the guilt phase determines that no

aggravating circumstance exists. In this situation, the trial court can only sentence the defendant to LWOP.


Getting Really Technical

 

The CCA also considered the very technical question of whether it had jurisdiction to consider the State’s request for a writ of mandamus.

 

In criminal cases, the State of Alabama has very few opportunities to appeal an adverse ruling. At times the State must ask for what’s called a “writ of mandamus” -- basically, an order from a higher court (the Court of Criminal Appeals or the Supreme Court) to mandate that a circuit court do something.  Mandamus is rarely granted and very hard to get. Basically, you have to show (a) you’re clearly entitled to the relief you seek, and (b) there’s no other option for you. The State often has to revert to mandamus requests because their right to appeal is so limited. Defendants have an even harder time getting mandamus since they have a broader right to appeal, and thus, a chance to rectify legal wrongs.

 

With respect to this issue, the Court found that there is no statute authorizing a state appeal on this question. Since a writ of mandamus can be issued to “prevent a gross disruption in the administration of criminal justice,” the Court concluded that it had jurisdiction to consider granting the writ because the situation at hand threatened a “gross disruption in the administration."

 

 

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.



 


Recent Posts


Tags

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

Archive

DISCLAIMER

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.