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

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

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.