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

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

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.