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.


J.D. Lloyd - Friday, May 06, 2016

Eugene Lee Jones v. State (CR-14-1332)


Jones was convicted of manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of murder, stemming from him killing a woman he suspected of setting him up in a robbery. Jones voluntarily talked to investigators on July 29, 2013, in connection to the death, but eventually stopped the questioning when he invoked his right to counsel. Jones was arrested on an outstanding warrant out of Bessemer. Jones was eventually transported back to Lauderdale County on another warrant stemming from a charge unrelated to the homicide. While still in custody, Jones was asked to submit to a polygraph examination. Jones waived his Miranda rights, submitted to the polygraph, and subsequently made another statement in which he admitted that he strangled the victim. Jones moved to suppress this statement under Edwards v. AZ, 451 US 477 (1981) on the grounds that investigators improperly re-initiated contact after he had invoked his right to counsel. The circuit court denied the motion. AFFIRMED. Relying on MD v. Shatzer, 559 US 98 (2010), the CCA affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress on the grounds that “coercive effect” of re-initiation of interrogation wasn’t present in this case like it was in Edwards. Essentially, the Court held that if enough time has passed since the initial invocation of the right to counsel -- more than 14 days -- there is no presumptively problematic re-initiation as there was in Edwards.


Levins v. State (CR-15-0612)


Bell v. State (CR-15-0618)

The appellants in these two cases were two expungement petitioners who were denied relief at the circuit court level and asked the CCA to reverse the denials of their petitions. APPEALS DISMISSED One may only challenge the denial of their expungement petition by petitioning the Alabama Supreme Court for certiorari review of the denial of the petition for expungement.

John Earle Redfearn, IV v. State (CR-14-0500)


This case involved the denial of a motion to suppress drugs evidence recovered from Redfearn’s body. In February 2012, law enforcement obtained a search warrant of Redfearn’s residence based upon 2 controlled buys that occurred at the residence with Redfearn. Law enforcement executed the SW after they observed Redfearn drive away from the house. He was stopped several miles away while the search of the house was going on and taken back to the house by the detaining officers. While executing the warrant, Redfearn’s girlfriend arrived at the house and eventually told the officers that Redfearn keeps drugs on his person. An officer strip-searched Redfearn at the residence and recovered a bottle containing oxycodone pills in his underwear. Redfearn moved to suppress under Bailey v. US, 133 S.Ct. 1031 (2013). AFFIRMED. The CCA explained that while Bailey held that a suspect may be lawfully detained while police are conducting a search warrant only when the person is in the "immediate vicinity" of the place to be searched, Redfearn was properly detained because the police had probable cause to arrest him based upon the controlled buys previously carried out with Redfearn and observed by law enforcement.


Nathaniel Woods (CR-10-0695)

Alfonso Morris (CR-11-1925)

John Russell Calhoun (CR-14-0779)

In these three cases, the CCA affirmed the denial of Rule 32 relief for death-row inmates without holding evidentiary hearings. There’s not much that’s noteworthy in these opinions outside of the observation that the petitions were summarily denied because each petitioner failed to plead sufficient facts that, if proven true, could entitle them to relief. The vast majority of the factual claims in the three petitions were bare-boned factual allegations. In Woods and Morris, petitioners raised claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present certain expert testimony at trial. The CCA affirmed the summary dismissal of these claims because the petitioner failed to identify an expert and what that expert’s testimony would have been at the pleading stage. It bears repeating that if you’re going to raise an IAC claim, in order to be entitled to a hearing, you have to give the circuit court sufficient factual allegations that the court can conclude that your claims could entitle you to relief if proven true. In the context of IAC based on the failure to call certain expert witnesses, you need to make a proffer as to who that expert would have been and what the testimony would have been at the pleading stage.


Brian Fredick Lucas (CR-14-0744)


Lucas was convicted of first-degree attempted sodomy by forcible compulsion and first-degree sexual abuse stemming from an incident in which he allegedly touched his step-daughter on the mouth with his penis while she was sleeping. The CCA reversed his first-degree sodomy conviction on the grounds that the State’s showing did not present evidence of forcible compulsion -- there was no threat by Lucas or evidence that his actions overcame her earnest resistance. The CCA did enter a judgment convicting Lucas of attempted sexual misconduct.



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


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



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.