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

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

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.