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.



 


Recent Posts


Tags

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

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.