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.

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)



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.



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


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



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.