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

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

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.