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

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

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.