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

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

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.