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


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



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.