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


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



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.