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

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

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.