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

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

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.