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

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

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.