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

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

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.