In Gregory Lamar Ballard v. State of Alabama, Ballard appealed the denial of his petition for resentencing under Alabama Code § 15-22-54.1, which allows retroactive review for certain offenders whose probation was revoked due to technical violations. Ballard had been convicted of first-degree theft and receiving stolen property, sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment, and placed in a community-corrections program as part of a split sentence before its revocation led to incarceration. The circuit court initially denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction, and on remand clarified that the placement was under a split sentence rather than probation. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding that the statute applies only to revocations of probation and not to revocations of community-corrections sentences served as part of a split sentence, because those involve serving a confinement portion of the sentence under Department of Corrections custody rather than a suspended sentence. Thus, Ballard did not meet the statutory criteria, and the circuit court lacked authority to resentence him.
Steven Todd Johnson was charged with two counts of first-degree theft of a motor vehicle and one count of third-degree burglary after a Kawasaki mule utility vehicle and a Polaris four-wheeler were stolen from two nearby properties on December 9, 2009. A jury convicted Johnson on all three counts, and the trial court sentenced him as a habitual felony offender to three concurrent 10-year terms of imprisonment. On appeal, Johnson argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions, noting the absence of direct eyewitness testimony placing him at the scenes of the thefts or burglary. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions, reasoning that the evidence of Johnson's recent possession of the stolen items, his flight from the scene, and his attempt to hide from police was sufficient for a jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Benson W. Peak was convicted in Tuscaloosa Municipal Court and, after a de novo jury trial, in circuit court for violating a city ordinance by failing to register his septic tank on property in the Lake Tuscaloosa drainage basin. Peak moved to dismiss, arguing the ordinance exceeded municipal authority over proprietary functions, was preempted by state law, violated due process and equal protection by lacking a rational basis, and compelled self-incriminating information in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The trial court denied the motion after briefing, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the ordinance validly protected the city's public water supply as a governmental function, was not preempted, bore a rational relation to public health based on evidence of contamination risks from septic systems, and did not require incriminating disclosures.
The case involved Kevan Mathews, who was convicted of first-degree unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance, second-degree possession of marijuana, and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia under Alabama law, and sentenced to 20 years in prison along with various fines and assessments. Following an Anders brief from appointed counsel indicating no meritorious issues on appeal, the court reviewed the record and found no reversible error regarding the convictions themselves. However, the court remanded the case for resentencing because the $1,000 fine imposed under the Drug Demand Reduction Assessment Act did not apply to a conviction for violating § 13A-12-218, as established by prior precedent. The convictions were affirmed, but the fine was ordered to be set aside.
In this case, Curtis Dale Brooks was convicted by a jury in Randolph County on three counts of first-degree robbery arising from a single 2008 incident at a flower shop, where he was accused of using a pistol to steal money from employees Mildred Freeman and Tony White as well as from the business itself. Brooks appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and double-jeopardy violations. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions on counts 1 (Freeman) and 2 (White's wallet) as separate offenses involving distinct victims, but held that count 3 (business theft from White) merged with count 2 under double-jeopardy principles because both involved the same victim and threats of force in a single course of conduct. The court also remanded for the trial court to vacate the count-3 conviction and to clarify whether the 85-year sentence applied to each remaining count and whether the terms were concurrent or consecutive.
This case is Bruce Wilkerson's appeal from the circuit court's denial of his Rule 32 petition challenging his 2004 capital murder conviction and life-without-parole sentence for a robbery-related killing. Wilkerson raised multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, primarily concerning his first attorney's advice to cooperate with police, the presence of a law clerk during questioning, and later counsel's handling of plea negotiations and trial. On return from remand for specific findings on one claim, the Court of Criminal Appeals addressed the claims alongside arguments about procedural bars under Rule 32.2(a), ultimately reviewing the record from the direct appeal and evidentiary hearing to evaluate whether counsel's performance was deficient or prejudicial.