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


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



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.