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


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



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.