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

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

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.