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

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

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.