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

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

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.