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.



 

Is Alabama’s Death Penalty Scheme on Life Support?

J.D. Lloyd - Thursday, January 14, 2016

Today, by an 8-1 vote (Justice Alito dissenting), the US Supreme Court struck down Florida's death penalty sentencing scheme in Hurst v Florida . This is huge news in Alabama as our death penalty sentencing scheme is very similar.
 
Under Florida law, a capital offense only exposes a defendant to a punishment of life imprisonment without possibility of parole (“LWOP”). A defendant can be sentenced to death only after the court makes additional findings. Essentially, after the guilt phase, a court conducts a sentencing hearing where a jury will make a sentencing recommendation of LWOP or death. This recommendation is purely advisory. Then, the sentencing judge makes a determination of whether to impose LWOP or death.
 
The Court found this scheme violates Ring v. Arizona, which held that all facts necessary to impose death must be found by the jury. Only judicial -- and not jury -- fact-finding can expose a defendant to death under Florida law. Pursuant to Ring , this scheme violates the Sixth Amendment.
 
In Alabama, we have a similar scheme; however, by statute, a capital conviction exposes a defendant to LWOP or death -- a Florida conviction, standing alone, only exposes a defendant to LWOP. After receiving a recommendation from the jury, the Alabama judge makes the final determination of what sentence to impose. So the sentencing decision still falls upon the judge in Alabama.
 
Whether the Alabama system holds a distinction without a real difference from the Florida law will be litigated in the very near future. Regardless, the reins have been tightened a little more on the death penalty.
 
 
For more information on the decision, click here.

 

 

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

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

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.