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

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

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.