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

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

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.