James H. Fry

In Clark v. State, the defendant was convicted of capital murder during a first-degree robbery and sentenced to death. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama reviewed the trial court's sentencing order and found it failed to include the specific written findings required by Alabama Code § 13A-5-47(d) regarding the existence or nonexistence of each aggravating and mitigating circumstance, as well as a factual summary of the crime and the defendant's role. The court also determined that the trial judge had improperly relied in part on the victim's status and person when finding the offense was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel under § 13A-5-49(8), rather than limiting the analysis to whether the murder was conscienceless, pitiless, and unnecessarily torturous to the victim under the standard from Ex parte Kyzer. The appellate court therefore remanded the case for the trial court to enter a corrected sentencing order with the required findings while preserving the death sentence for further review.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Antonio Bonner, who was convicted on four counts of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance under Alabama law and sentenced as a habitual offender to concurrent life terms. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions but initially remanded for imposition of mandatory Demand Reduction Assessment fines and for application of sentencing enhancements under §§ 13A-12-250 and 13A-12-270 due to sales occurring near a school and housing project. On rehearing, following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, the court held that those enhancements could not be applied because the factual findings increasing the sentence were not submitted to and found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt; it therefore vacated the sentences and directed resentencing without the enhancements. The core reasoning centered on the mandatory nature of the Apprendi rule for facts that raise a sentence above the statutory maximum and the requirement to apply Alabama's fine statutes on each count.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Alan Lee Anderson's Rule 32 petition challenging his 1998 conviction and life sentence for first-degree kidnapping. Anderson claimed violations of double jeopardy after the trial court accepted but then rejected his guilty plea to second-degree kidnapping, a defective indictment due to an improper amendment, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama reversed the first-degree kidnapping conviction, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because it never accepted the guilty plea or validly amended the indictment to charge the lesser offense. The court remanded the case with instructions to reinstate the original guilty plea conviction for second-degree kidnapping and to impose sentence on that charge. The decision rested on the principle that a court cannot try or convict a defendant on charges not contained in a valid indictment.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Michael Deangela Dowdell's conviction for fraudulent use of a debit card under Alabama law, for which he received an eight-year sentence as a habitual offender. Dowdell challenged the admission of the victim's bank transaction records, arguing they constituted inadmissible hearsay because the supervisor who printed the computer-generated documents did not testify at trial. The court held that the records qualified under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (Rule 803(6), Ala. R. Evid.), as the testimony of an electronic services assistant established their regular maintenance by the bank, her personal knowledge of the records, and their reliability despite the supervisor's absence. The court further found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction, based on the victim's identification of Dowdell in ATM photographs and her testimony that the withdrawals were unauthorized. The judgment was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Anthony Keith Brown appealing his multiple convictions for burglary, theft, receiving stolen property, conspiracy, and related offenses stemming from several pharmacy break-ins in Florence, Alabama, where he participated in planning, supplying equipment, and dividing stolen drugs. The court addressed whether Brown could be tried in absentia after he escaped custody during the trial, ruling that his voluntary absence constituted a waiver of his right to be present under Rule 9.1, Ala.R.Crim.P. It also reversed his conviction for receiving stolen property in the second degree because the evidence showed he participated in the underlying theft, making such a conviction legally inconsistent, while other challenges like sufficiency of the evidence were not preserved for review. The case was remanded for vacating that one conviction and resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Ricky Hunter's convictions for second-degree assault and first-degree robbery arising from an incident in which he allegedly robbed and assaulted a victim at gunpoint after following the victim's car from a nightclub. Hunter appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting testimony from another victim about a prior robbery committed by Hunter two weeks earlier, claiming the evidence was inadmissible under Rule 404(b), Ala. R. Evid., to prove bad character. The court examined the exclusionary rule's limits on prior bad acts evidence and whether the prior robbery could be admitted for the limited purpose of showing intent, with the majority concluding the evidence was improperly admitted as prejudicial and not fitting within Rule 404(b)'s exceptions, while a dissent maintained it was properly allowed to prove intent with a limiting instruction. The opinion addresses the application of Alabama evidence rules to collateral crimes in a criminal trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Damon Tolliver's appeal from convictions on multiple counts of breaking and entering a vehicle, second-degree theft, and third-degree theft arising from a series of vehicle break-ins at apartment complexes and a car dealership in Montgomery, Alabama, where stolen items including stereos, CDs, and a checkbook were recovered from the car in which Tolliver was a passenger. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that Tolliver's challenge to the consolidation of the indictments was not preserved for review because it was not raised at trial, and that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the convictions. The court also found that Tolliver's 15-year sentence for one count of third-degree theft was unauthorized because that offense is a Class A misdemeanor carrying a maximum penalty of one year in prison, rendering the sentence void. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions but remanded the case for resentencing within the statutory limits and for clarification of the sentencing order.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Donald Broadnax's appeal from his convictions on four counts of capital murder and resulting death sentence in Jefferson County Circuit Court. Broadnax, who had a prior murder conviction and was on work release, was charged with killing his wife and her three-year-old grandson by blunt force trauma, with evidence including the victims' bodies found in the trunk of the wife's car, blood matching the victims on Broadnax's work uniform and boots, and witness testimony placing him with the victims shortly before the murders. On rehearing, the Court of Criminal Appeals withdrew its prior opinion and substituted a new one addressing numerous appellate claims, including challenges to venue, jury instructions, prosecutorial conduct, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions and aggravating circumstances such as the prior murder, kidnapping, and heinous nature of the crime. The court ultimately upheld the convictions and death sentence, finding the evidence sufficient and no reversible error in the trial proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Bobby Wayne Waldrop's convictions on three counts of capital murder for stabbing his grandparents to death during a robbery to obtain money for crack cocaine. A jury recommended life imprisonment without parole by a 10-2 vote, but the trial court overrode that recommendation and imposed a death sentence. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals identified multiple errors in the trial court's sentencing order that could affect the validity of the death sentence, including improper consideration of prior unconvicted criminal activity, and remanded the case for a corrected sentencing order while pretermitting other issues until that order was received. The court also addressed and rejected claims regarding the qualifications of appellate counsel under Alabama law.

criminal lawprocedure

In R.J.K. v. State, the appellant was originally indicted for first-degree rape under Alabama law for engaging in sexual intercourse with a female under age 12, but the indictment was amended with his agreement to charge second-degree rape involving a victim between ages 12 and 16, to which he pleaded guilty and received a 20-year sentence as a repeat offender. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama reviewed the record and identified a jurisdictional defect, holding that an indictment cannot be amended to charge an offense not encompassed within the original charge. The court reasoned that second-degree rape is not a lesser-included offense of first-degree rape because the two crimes require proof of mutually exclusive victim age ranges, making it impossible to commit the greater offense without also committing the lesser. As a result, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept the guilty plea, the judgment was declared void, the sentence was set aside, and the case was remanded with the original first-degree rape indictment remaining valid.

criminal lawprocedure

In Evans v. State, the defendant was convicted of second-degree forgery, second-degree possession of a forged instrument, and illegal absentee voting based on evidence that he assisted in completing and submitting multiple absentee ballot applications and affidavits in a manner that allegedly violated Alabama law. On remand from the Alabama Supreme Court, the Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed claims of insufficient evidence and other trial errors. The court reversed the convictions related to one voter (Rosia Gray) after determining that the evidence failed to prove the absentee ballot manager qualified as a public employee under the forgery statute or that the votes were actually cast or counted under the illegal voting statute, but it affirmed the remaining convictions and sentences. The court rejected other arguments, including cumulative error, after applying standards for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence and finding no reversible trial errors. The topics are elections, criminal law, and procedure.

electionscriminal lawprocedure

The case involves Danny Ray Hatfield, who pleaded guilty in 1998 to second-degree assault and discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle and later filed a Rule 32 petition seeking an out-of-time appeal on the ground that his pro se notice of appeal had been improperly dismissed as untimely. The circuit court summarily dismissed the petition, but the Court of Criminal Appeals took judicial notice of the appellate record showing that Hatfield, then incarcerated, dated and handed his notice to prison officials on the 42nd day after sentencing though it was not marked filed by the clerk until two days later. Relying on Alabama Supreme Court decisions in Ex parte Jones, Ex parte Williams, and Ex parte Powell, the court held that a pro se incarcerated appellant's notice is considered filed when delivered to prison officials and therefore remanded for findings of fact and, if needed, an evidentiary hearing on the timeliness claim.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Arthur James Sanford, who had pleaded guilty to first-degree sodomy and rape and received suspended sentences with probation, filed a petition attacking the 1999 revocation of his probation after it was treated as a Rule 32 postconviction filing. He alleged violations of procedural due process at the revocation hearing, insufficient evidence to support revocation, an inadequate revocation order, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the due process, evidence sufficiency, and order adequacy claims were procedurally barred under Rule 32.2 because they could have been but were not raised at the hearing or on direct appeal. The court remanded the ineffective assistance claim for the trial court to make findings of fact, noting that the record did not show it was meritless.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Eddie Frank Goodloe, who was convicted of trafficking in marijuana and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia after police executed a search warrant at a residence and found over nine pounds of marijuana, scales, and other items. Goodloe, who was standing on the porch barbecuing at the time, argued that the state had not proven he possessed the contraband. The appellate court reversed both convictions and rendered judgment for Goodloe, reasoning that the evidence failed to establish constructive possession because he was not in exclusive control of the house, no items were found on his person, and there was no fingerprint or other direct evidence linking him to the drugs or paraphernalia inside.

criminal law

The case involved Steven L. Byrdsong's appeal from the denial of his Rule 32 petition challenging his 1997 capital murder conviction and life-without-parole sentence. Byrdsong argued that his appointed trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by collecting fees from his mother after appointment, creating an actual or potential conflict of interest. The court affirmed the denial of relief, holding that an unethical fee arrangement alone does not establish deficient performance or prejudice under the Strickland standard. It found no evidence that the fee collection affected counsel's representation or the fairness of the trial outcome.

criminal lawprocedure

William P. Tucker, convicted of murder and assault and serving life in prison, petitioned the Montgomery Circuit Court for a writ of certiorari challenging the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles' 1999 denial of his parole request, alleging it was based on false information in his prison file. The circuit court initially dismissed the petition without addressing the claim on the merits, but after remand from the Court of Criminal Appeals, it reviewed the evidence and found no proof that the Board relied on fraudulent or capricious information. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial, noting that while inmates have no liberty interest in parole, the Board cannot deny it for capricious reasons, and the record established that the denial was not based on false information.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved B.B., a minor, who was adjudicated delinquent by a juvenile court for receiving stolen property in the first degree after being found as a passenger in a stolen vehicle during a police chase. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama reversed the adjudication and rendered judgment in B.B.'s favor. The court reasoned that the state's evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that B.B. exercised any control, dominion, or possession over the stolen car, as required by the statute, since his mere presence as a passenger without additional evidence of control did not establish the necessary elements. The decision emphasized that the holding was limited to the specific facts presented and did not preclude convictions of passengers in other circumstances where control is shown.

criminal law

The case involved Carlos Gilbert Law, who was convicted of cocaine possession and had his probation revoked by the Mobile County circuit court after the State alleged he committed various offenses while imprisoned, including harassment and assault. Law appealed, arguing for the first time that the trial court erred by failing to inform him of his right to request counsel during the revocation hearing. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that due process under Gagnon v. Scarpelli and Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.6 requires that a probationer be informed of the right to request counsel and that the court make a case-by-case determination on entitlement to appointed counsel, particularly when a colorable claim or mitigating reasons are presented. Because the record showed no such advisement and Law denied the violations while raising potential defenses, the court remanded for the trial court to determine whether counsel was required and, if so, to conduct a new revocation proceeding with proper notice of rights.

criminal lawprocedure

In Simmons v. State, the defendant was charged with three counts of capital murder arising from the killing of a victim during a burglary, robbery, and sexual abuse; at trial, one count was dismissed, and the jury convicted him of intentional murder as a lesser included offense on one count and capital murder on the sexual abuse count, recommending a death sentence that the trial court imposed. On appeal, Simmons challenged the admission of DNA evidence linking him to the crime, arguing that the polymerase chain reaction method and population frequency statistics failed to meet reliability standards under Alabama Code § 36-18-30 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed for plain error because the issue was not raised at trial, held that the evidence satisfied the statute's requirements for reliability and relevance as interpreted in Turner v. State, found no error in the conviction or sentencing proceedings, and affirmed the convictions and death sentence after independently weighing aggravating and mitigating factors.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Willie C. Dobyne's appeal from the denial of his Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief, in which he challenged his 1992 capital murder conviction and death sentence for killings committed during a robbery at a truck stop. The circuit court found many claims procedurally barred, held an evidentiary hearing on the juror misconduct allegation, and denied all relief in a detailed order. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial, noting that direct appeal issues had already been reviewed, that no plain-error standard applies to Rule 32 proceedings, and that the trial judge's personal knowledge supported rejecting the remaining claims of ineffective assistance and other errors without further hearings. The decision relied on prior affirmances by the Alabama Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the lack of merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding jury selection and counsel performance.

criminal lawprocedure