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

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

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.