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

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

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.