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

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

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.