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

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