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

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

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.