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

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

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.