Jordaan Stanly Creque, an Alabama death-row inmate convicted of capital murder for the 2011 robbery and shooting deaths of two Krystal restaurant employees, appealed the Morgan Circuit Court's summary dismissal of his Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that Creque's claims—including ineffective assistance of counsel, challenges to the indictment, jury instructions, and sentencing—were either insufficiently pleaded, refuted by the trial record, or lacked merit. The court further ruled that Creque failed to show good cause for postconviction discovery and was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing because his petition did not present meritorious claims on its face. Claims not properly reasserted on appeal were deemed abandoned.
The case involved the State of Alabama appealing the Montgomery Circuit Court's dismissal with prejudice of an indictment charging Sylvia Shamel Scott with second-degree theft of property and second-degree domestic violence. The trial court dismissed the charges after the victim failed to appear for trial despite a subpoena, following earlier continuances requested by the State due to service issues and the victim's reluctance to proceed. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the trial court abused its discretion because the dismissal was unduly severe given the State's efforts to secure witnesses, the procedural posture requiring jury trial consent, and the lack of justification for immediate dismissal without allowing time for the witness to appear.
Senica Gerard Parker appealed the Mobile Circuit Court's revocation of his probation after he was arrested for new offenses including DUI, attempting to elude, and first-degree theft of property, following his 2023 guilty plea to first-degree receiving stolen property and a split sentence to probation. Parker argued for the first time on appeal that his original sentence was illegal because the split did not comply with presumptive sentencing standards, rendering the probation revocation invalid due to lack of jurisdiction. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the revocation, holding that any error in departing from the presumptive sentencing standards is not jurisdictional (unlike violations of the Split Sentence Act) and must be preserved for review, so it could not be raised for the first time in an appeal from a probation revocation order. The court distinguished such nonjurisdictional sentencing issues from those that would void the underlying conviction or sentence.
The case concerned D.D.B., a minor, who appealed a delinquency adjudication in Tuscaloosa Juvenile Court for violating Alabama Code § 13A-11-72(b) by possessing a pistol. D.D.B. filed motions challenging the statute's constitutionality under the Second Amendment and the Alabama Constitution and seeking to suppress evidence from a police encounter. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the adjudication. The court held that the evidence resulted from an unlawful Terry stop, as the officer lacked reasonable suspicion when activating emergency lights behind D.D.B.'s legally parked vehicle in a high-crime area based on prior unrelated complaints.
The case involved Warren Terrell Hardy, who was convicted of capital murder during a robbery of Kathleen Lundy, two counts of first-degree kidnapping, first-degree domestic violence based on stalking, and discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle, arising from a series of incidents involving his former girlfriend and her family members. The trial court imposed a death sentence for the capital murder after a jury recommendation, along with lengthy prison terms for the other convictions. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the kidnapping, domestic violence, and firearm convictions and sentences but reversed the capital murder conviction and death sentence, remanding for a new trial on that charge based on an error during jury selection related to death qualification of a prospective juror.
The case involved William Kiwanis Carroll's appeal of his conviction for provocation manslaughter in the shooting death of Eric Witcher. The trial court allowed the State to introduce evidence of Carroll's prior alleged act of firing a weapon at a woman who had refused his sexual advances, arguing it showed motive or a pattern of retaliation. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that this collateral-acts evidence was inadmissible because it was offered primarily to prove Carroll's propensity to commit the charged offense rather than for a proper purpose under the evidence rules. The court further determined that the error was not harmless, given the contested issues of self-defense and intent at trial, and therefore reversed the conviction and sentence, remanding the case for a new trial.