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


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



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.