CALL 205.538.3340

The Law Office of J.D. Lloyd Logo Because There’s Hope After the Trial


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.


J.D. Lloyd - Friday, May 06, 2016

Eugene Lee Jones v. State (CR-14-1332)


Jones was convicted of manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of murder, stemming from him killing a woman he suspected of setting him up in a robbery. Jones voluntarily talked to investigators on July 29, 2013, in connection to the death, but eventually stopped the questioning when he invoked his right to counsel. Jones was arrested on an outstanding warrant out of Bessemer. Jones was eventually transported back to Lauderdale County on another warrant stemming from a charge unrelated to the homicide. While still in custody, Jones was asked to submit to a polygraph examination. Jones waived his Miranda rights, submitted to the polygraph, and subsequently made another statement in which he admitted that he strangled the victim. Jones moved to suppress this statement under Edwards v. AZ, 451 US 477 (1981) on the grounds that investigators improperly re-initiated contact after he had invoked his right to counsel. The circuit court denied the motion. AFFIRMED. Relying on MD v. Shatzer, 559 US 98 (2010), the CCA affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress on the grounds that “coercive effect” of re-initiation of interrogation wasn’t present in this case like it was in Edwards. Essentially, the Court held that if enough time has passed since the initial invocation of the right to counsel -- more than 14 days -- there is no presumptively problematic re-initiation as there was in Edwards.


Levins v. State (CR-15-0612)


Bell v. State (CR-15-0618)

The appellants in these two cases were two expungement petitioners who were denied relief at the circuit court level and asked the CCA to reverse the denials of their petitions. APPEALS DISMISSED One may only challenge the denial of their expungement petition by petitioning the Alabama Supreme Court for certiorari review of the denial of the petition for expungement.

John Earle Redfearn, IV v. State (CR-14-0500)


This case involved the denial of a motion to suppress drugs evidence recovered from Redfearn’s body. In February 2012, law enforcement obtained a search warrant of Redfearn’s residence based upon 2 controlled buys that occurred at the residence with Redfearn. Law enforcement executed the SW after they observed Redfearn drive away from the house. He was stopped several miles away while the search of the house was going on and taken back to the house by the detaining officers. While executing the warrant, Redfearn’s girlfriend arrived at the house and eventually told the officers that Redfearn keeps drugs on his person. An officer strip-searched Redfearn at the residence and recovered a bottle containing oxycodone pills in his underwear. Redfearn moved to suppress under Bailey v. US, 133 S.Ct. 1031 (2013). AFFIRMED. The CCA explained that while Bailey held that a suspect may be lawfully detained while police are conducting a search warrant only when the person is in the "immediate vicinity" of the place to be searched, Redfearn was properly detained because the police had probable cause to arrest him based upon the controlled buys previously carried out with Redfearn and observed by law enforcement.


Nathaniel Woods (CR-10-0695)

Alfonso Morris (CR-11-1925)

John Russell Calhoun (CR-14-0779)

In these three cases, the CCA affirmed the denial of Rule 32 relief for death-row inmates without holding evidentiary hearings. There’s not much that’s noteworthy in these opinions outside of the observation that the petitions were summarily denied because each petitioner failed to plead sufficient facts that, if proven true, could entitle them to relief. The vast majority of the factual claims in the three petitions were bare-boned factual allegations. In Woods and Morris, petitioners raised claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present certain expert testimony at trial. The CCA affirmed the summary dismissal of these claims because the petitioner failed to identify an expert and what that expert’s testimony would have been at the pleading stage. It bears repeating that if you’re going to raise an IAC claim, in order to be entitled to a hearing, you have to give the circuit court sufficient factual allegations that the court can conclude that your claims could entitle you to relief if proven true. In the context of IAC based on the failure to call certain expert witnesses, you need to make a proffer as to who that expert would have been and what the testimony would have been at the pleading stage.


Brian Fredick Lucas (CR-14-0744)


Lucas was convicted of first-degree attempted sodomy by forcible compulsion and first-degree sexual abuse stemming from an incident in which he allegedly touched his step-daughter on the mouth with his penis while she was sleeping. The CCA reversed his first-degree sodomy conviction on the grounds that the State’s showing did not present evidence of forcible compulsion -- there was no threat by Lucas or evidence that his actions overcame her earnest resistance. The CCA did enter a judgment convicting Lucas of attempted sexual misconduct.



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


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



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.