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.


J.D. Lloyd - Friday, May 06, 2016

Eugene Lee Jones v. State (CR-14-1332)


Jones was convicted of manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of murder, stemming from him killing a woman he suspected of setting him up in a robbery. Jones voluntarily talked to investigators on July 29, 2013, in connection to the death, but eventually stopped the questioning when he invoked his right to counsel. Jones was arrested on an outstanding warrant out of Bessemer. Jones was eventually transported back to Lauderdale County on another warrant stemming from a charge unrelated to the homicide. While still in custody, Jones was asked to submit to a polygraph examination. Jones waived his Miranda rights, submitted to the polygraph, and subsequently made another statement in which he admitted that he strangled the victim. Jones moved to suppress this statement under Edwards v. AZ, 451 US 477 (1981) on the grounds that investigators improperly re-initiated contact after he had invoked his right to counsel. The circuit court denied the motion. AFFIRMED. Relying on MD v. Shatzer, 559 US 98 (2010), the CCA affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress on the grounds that “coercive effect” of re-initiation of interrogation wasn’t present in this case like it was in Edwards. Essentially, the Court held that if enough time has passed since the initial invocation of the right to counsel -- more than 14 days -- there is no presumptively problematic re-initiation as there was in Edwards.


Levins v. State (CR-15-0612)


Bell v. State (CR-15-0618)

The appellants in these two cases were two expungement petitioners who were denied relief at the circuit court level and asked the CCA to reverse the denials of their petitions. APPEALS DISMISSED One may only challenge the denial of their expungement petition by petitioning the Alabama Supreme Court for certiorari review of the denial of the petition for expungement.

John Earle Redfearn, IV v. State (CR-14-0500)


This case involved the denial of a motion to suppress drugs evidence recovered from Redfearn’s body. In February 2012, law enforcement obtained a search warrant of Redfearn’s residence based upon 2 controlled buys that occurred at the residence with Redfearn. Law enforcement executed the SW after they observed Redfearn drive away from the house. He was stopped several miles away while the search of the house was going on and taken back to the house by the detaining officers. While executing the warrant, Redfearn’s girlfriend arrived at the house and eventually told the officers that Redfearn keeps drugs on his person. An officer strip-searched Redfearn at the residence and recovered a bottle containing oxycodone pills in his underwear. Redfearn moved to suppress under Bailey v. US, 133 S.Ct. 1031 (2013). AFFIRMED. The CCA explained that while Bailey held that a suspect may be lawfully detained while police are conducting a search warrant only when the person is in the "immediate vicinity" of the place to be searched, Redfearn was properly detained because the police had probable cause to arrest him based upon the controlled buys previously carried out with Redfearn and observed by law enforcement.


Nathaniel Woods (CR-10-0695)

Alfonso Morris (CR-11-1925)

John Russell Calhoun (CR-14-0779)

In these three cases, the CCA affirmed the denial of Rule 32 relief for death-row inmates without holding evidentiary hearings. There’s not much that’s noteworthy in these opinions outside of the observation that the petitions were summarily denied because each petitioner failed to plead sufficient facts that, if proven true, could entitle them to relief. The vast majority of the factual claims in the three petitions were bare-boned factual allegations. In Woods and Morris, petitioners raised claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present certain expert testimony at trial. The CCA affirmed the summary dismissal of these claims because the petitioner failed to identify an expert and what that expert’s testimony would have been at the pleading stage. It bears repeating that if you’re going to raise an IAC claim, in order to be entitled to a hearing, you have to give the circuit court sufficient factual allegations that the court can conclude that your claims could entitle you to relief if proven true. In the context of IAC based on the failure to call certain expert witnesses, you need to make a proffer as to who that expert would have been and what the testimony would have been at the pleading stage.


Brian Fredick Lucas (CR-14-0744)


Lucas was convicted of first-degree attempted sodomy by forcible compulsion and first-degree sexual abuse stemming from an incident in which he allegedly touched his step-daughter on the mouth with his penis while she was sleeping. The CCA reversed his first-degree sodomy conviction on the grounds that the State’s showing did not present evidence of forcible compulsion -- there was no threat by Lucas or evidence that his actions overcame her earnest resistance. The CCA did enter a judgment convicting Lucas of attempted sexual misconduct.



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


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



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.