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

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

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.