J William Cole

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

gunscriminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

In Melvin Christopher Moss v. State of Alabama, the defendant appealed the DeKalb Circuit Court's denial of his motion to withdraw a guilty plea to first-degree robbery under § 13A-8-41, entered in exchange for dismissal of 13 other charges. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the case. The core reasoning was that Moss was not accurately informed during the plea colloquy of the mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years' imprisonment under the Habitual Felony Offender Act and § 13A-5-6(a)(4) for a Class A felony involving a firearm or deadly weapon, nor of the correct minimum under the voluntary sentencing standards, violating Rule 14.4(a)(1)(ii), Ala. R. Crim. P., and rendering the plea involuntary.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Samuel Darrington's appeal of his convictions for murder and shooting into an unoccupied vehicle, as well as his sentences, following a trial in Mobile Circuit Court. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and the 25-year sentence for murder by unpublished memorandum. A partial dissent argued that the straight two-year sentence for the Class C felony of shooting into an unoccupied vehicle violated the versions of §§ 13A-5-6 and 15-18-8 in effect at the time of the offenses, which required a split sentence including a period of confinement not exceeding two years followed by probation. The dissent reasoned that the statutes mandated this structure to separate the confinement term from the overall sentence and to bar good-time credits during the minimum confinement period.

criminal law

The case involved the State of Alabama appealing the Mobile Circuit Court's dismissal with prejudice of an indictment charging Donald McMillian, Jr., with second-degree assault under Alabama Code § 13A-6-21 for allegedly injuring a victim with a firearm. The indictment initially cited the general statute but was later amended to specify subsection (a)(2) regarding use of a deadly weapon, which the trial court had allowed; McMillian moved to dismiss on grounds that the original indictment failed to allege an offense and referenced speedy-trial concerns after multiple trial delays. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that the circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing the charge with prejudice, finding no violation of McMillian's speedy-trial rights under the Barker v. Wingo factors because the delays were not attributable to the State, McMillian had not asserted the right earlier, and he showed no actual prejudice while out on bond. The court reasoned that dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction unwarranted here and that the amendment did not charge a new offense or prejudice the defendant given the discovery provided. It reversed the order and remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved J.D.N.B., who was adjudicated a youthful offender for second-degree receiving stolen property after a traffic stop uncovered a handgun later linked to a theft via reports from the Houston Police Department. At trial, the court overruled hearsay and Confrontation Clause objections and admitted the out-of-state police reports to prove the gun was stolen. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals ruled the reports were inadmissible hearsay and should not have been admitted, reversed the youthful-offender adjudication, and remanded the case. The court further held that the evidence as admitted was sufficient to support the verdict, so double-jeopardy principles did not bar retrial without the improper reports.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether Joshua Lashawn Booth, convicted in 2018 of possession of obscene matter depicting individuals under age 17 in violation of § 13A-12-192(b), Ala. Code 1975, was eligible for correctional incentive time under § 14-9-41(e). Booth filed a request for relief in the Bibb Circuit Court arguing that the bar for sex offenses involving a child (defined as under age 12 in § 15-20A-4) did not apply, and the circuit court granted him summary judgment and ordered the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) to calculate his good time. On appeal after remand proceedings, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the statutory prohibition on incentive time for any offense involving child pornography encompasses depictions of minors under 17 and that the ADOC's decision to award such time remains discretionary even for eligible prisoners. The court reasoned that Alabama statutes and precedent designate possession of obscene matter involving those under 17 as child pornography, making Booth ineligible, and that no liberty interest is created by the discretionary good-time provisions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Anteaus Ockzavia Glenn's appeal of a Montgomery Circuit Court order revoking his probation after he was convicted of second-degree criminal mischief. The revocation was based on allegations of absconding, a technical violation for possessing a firearm, and multiple new offenses including domestic violence by strangulation, third-degree domestic violence assaults, and theft of property. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the revocation and remanded the case, holding that the State failed to present sufficient nonhearsay evidence connecting Glenn to the alleged violations. The court noted that testimony about the incidents relied on hearsay from the alleged victims, and text messages purportedly from Glenn were not properly authenticated to qualify as nonhearsay party-opponent statements. Without adequate admissible evidence, the revocation could not stand under Alabama law.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Michael David Belcher, convicted of capital murder during a kidnapping and sentenced to death, appealed the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court's summary dismissal of his Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that Belcher's claims—including ineffective assistance of counsel, due process violations, and challenges to the Fair Justice Act—were either procedurally barred, insufficiently pleaded with specific facts, or meritless under existing law. The court rejected arguments that COVID-19 restrictions unconstitutionally hampered investigation, noting that Belcher's counsel had nearly a year before restrictions and over 700 days total to develop claims before filing. It further found no violation of separation of powers or equal protection principles in the postconviction framework.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Thomas Edison Douglas, Jr.'s appeal from the Jefferson District Court's revocation of his probation on convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm, heroin trafficking, and first-degree receiving stolen property. After Douglas admitted violating probation by committing new offenses, the district court revoked probation and imposed new split sentences of 8 years' imprisonment followed by 2 years' probation on his original 20-year terms. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the revocation as proper but held that the resplit sentences exceeded the maximum authorized under Alabama's Split Sentence Act (§ 15-18-8), as interpreted with § 15-18-8.2, because they did not limit the imprisonment portion to the remaining allowable split time. The court remanded for the district court to vacate the illegal sentences and impose a lawful sanction after a hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Geraldo Jarzavian Jackson's appeal of his convictions for first-degree rape, first-degree sodomy, and first-degree kidnapping, along with consecutive life sentences, arising from a 2017 incident in which the victim was abducted from a motel parking lot, sexually assaulted by multiple men including Jackson in a moving vehicle, and then abandoned after being chased. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding that the victim's testimony, corroborated by an eyewitness and forensic evidence, was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts despite any inconsistencies in the record. The court rejected challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, noting that conflicts and credibility issues are for the jury to resolve and that the evidence was not so lacking as to make the verdicts unjust. However, the court reversed the trial court's restitution award and remanded the case for a proper restitution hearing with findings of fact.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Anthony Orr's appeal of his convictions for intentional murder, attempted murder, attempted first-degree assault, and discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle, arising from a shooting incident after a parade in which Orr, despite a protection-from-abuse order, shot and killed Eldred Martin Hall and fired into a U-Haul truck occupied by his ex-wife Valerie Reed and others. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Orr's convictions on all counts as well as his sentences of life imprisonment for murder and attempted murder and 15 years for assault. The court also affirmed the conviction for discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle but remanded for resentencing on that charge alone because the original 10-year term was illegal under the Habitual Felony Offender Act, which required life imprisonment or at least 20 years given Orr's three prior felony convictions. The core reasoning centered on the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdicts, the absence of reversible procedural or evidentiary errors, and the need to correct the sentencing mistake while upholding the rest of the judgment.

criminal lawguns

The case involved Herman Clifford Hall's appeal of his conviction for first-degree assault after he stabbed Lorenzo Hines in the leg and abdomen during an argument at a polling location over fraternity membership. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the first-degree assault conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the victim suffered serious physical injury, as the wounds were puncture and laceration injuries that did not require surgery, posed no substantial risk of death, and caused no protracted impairment. The court remanded the case with instructions to enter a judgment of guilty on the lesser-included offense of second-degree assault, for which the jury had been instructed and sufficient evidence existed showing intent to cause physical injury with a deadly weapon. The opinion emphasized that the victim's quick recovery and lack of lasting effects precluded the higher charge under Alabama law.

criminal law

The case involved Terrell Demetrius Bailey, who was charged with first-degree human trafficking and denied bail by the Montgomery Circuit Court after a pretrial detention hearing. Bailey petitioned the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking either the setting of reasonable bail or a remand for more detailed written findings on the denial. The court denied the petition, holding that the circuit court's delay in issuing its order beyond 48 hours did not invalidate its authority to deny bail or prejudice Bailey, and that the hearing transcript combined with the written order sufficiently demonstrated the evidence relied upon (including witness testimony about the alleged victim's confinement and assaults) and the reasons for finding no conditions would ensure appearance or community safety, consistent with due process standards. The decision emphasized that the circuit court conducted an independent review based on the presented evidence of Bailey's prior charges and the new offense.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Jefferson County Department of Human Resources challenging a Chilton Juvenile Court order that required it to reimburse the Chilton County Commission $85 per day for the pre-adjudication detention of a minor, C.M., who faced delinquency charges for shoving a teacher. After the juvenile court denied the DHR's motion to vacate that provision, the DHR petitioned the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of mandamus. The appellate court granted the petition, holding that the juvenile court lacked authority to impose the reimbursement obligation because Alabama statutes assign responsibility for such maintenance and care expenses to the county treasurer of the county where the proceedings occurred, not to a state agency like the DHR. The court further noted that the DHR was not a parent or other legally obligated party under the relevant juvenile code provisions and had not been properly joined as a party.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

Teresa Darwin Phillips pleaded guilty to multiple counts of first-, second-, and third-degree theft of property, theft by deception, and financial exploitation of elderly persons arising from her conduct as a former attorney. She received concurrent split sentences involving periods of imprisonment followed by probation. On appeal, Phillips challenged the trial court's departure from presumptive sentencing standards on the ground that the State failed to provide timely notice of aggravating factors before the guilty pleas and that no good cause excused the delay. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and the sentences for the higher-degree offenses, finding the departure from the standards was permissible, but remanded for resentencing on the Class D felony convictions to comply with statutory requirements that such sentences be probated or served in community corrections rather than split.

criminal lawprocedure