CALL 205.538.3340

The Law Office of J.D. Lloyd Logo Because There’s Hope After the Trial


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)



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.



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


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



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.