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

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

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.