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

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

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.