Mary Becker Windom

John Carl Harris III was convicted of two counts of operating a business without a license under a City of Gulf Shores ordinance after his company, Gulf Coast Rental Company, rented golf carts in 2024. Harris appealed to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals following a trial de novo in circuit court. The court reversed the convictions, holding that the company possessed a valid business license covering the rental of recreational goods, which included golf carts, and that no separate license was required under the ordinance. The court further noted that the city ordinances at the time did not prohibit golf cart rentals and that the prior denial of a specific license application did not establish a violation.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

Jeremy T. Williams appealed his guilty-plea convictions in Russell Circuit Court for four counts of capital murder in the death of five-year-old K.H., including murders committed during kidnapping, rape, and sodomy, as well as his resulting death sentence. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the capital-murder convictions and death sentence while dismissing the appeal as to his other convictions. The court found that Williams knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights in the guilty plea, the jury found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt after trial on the capital charges, and the sentencing court properly identified and weighed aggravating circumstances (such as the victim's age under 14, commission during kidnapping and rape, and heinous nature of the crimes) against the limited mitigating circumstances before imposing death. The court independently reweighed the factors, confirmed the sentence was not the result of passion or prejudice, and determined it was neither excessive nor disproportionate compared to penalties in similar Alabama cases.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Alton LeVon Surles's appeal of the Lee Circuit Court's order revoking his probation for a 2021 conviction of first-degree promoting prison contraband. Surles had been accused of technical violations including failing to report to his probation officer, violating electronic monitoring and curfew rules, and changing residences without permission; he had already received sanctions from the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles and the Montgomery Circuit Court for the same conduct. The Lee Circuit Court denied his motion to dismiss and fully revoked his probation, ordering him to serve the remainder of his 15-year sentence. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that under Ala. Code § 15-22-54(e)(1)c. the violations were technical in nature and did not involve new offenses, absconding, or failure to complete a rehabilitative program, so the maximum sanction permitted was 45 days of confinement rather than full revocation.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved T.A.A., Jr.'s appeal from guilty-plea convictions in Coffee Circuit Court on multiple counts of production of obscene matter depicting a person under 17, sexual abuse of a child under 12, first-degree sodomy, and a parent permitting children to engage in production of obscene matter. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals initially remanded for resentencing because the original sentences omitted the mandatory minimum 10 years of post-release supervision required by § 13A-5-6(c) for Class A felony sex offenses involving a child. After resentencing on remand, T.A.A. sought to withdraw his plea on the ground that the added supervision term rendered it involuntary. The court held that the single plea agreement covering all 14 charges, negotiated and accepted in one proceeding, was indivisible, so the trial court could not sever only the affected counts; it therefore reversed the convictions and remanded with directions to set aside the plea and restore the case to the docket.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Steven Richard Mulkey's appeal of his capital-murder conviction and death sentence for intentionally killing Siu Mei Kao and Ching Kao, an elderly couple, by one act or pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct under Alabama law. Mulkey had been hired by the victims for odd jobs and was recorded on surveillance video striking them with a hammer during an argument at their motel; he was later stopped by police while driving their vehicle containing the victims' safe and bodies. The jury found two aggravating circumstances, including a prior violent felony conviction, and unanimously recommended death. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the evidence supported the jury's findings, the sentence was not imposed under improper influence, and it was neither excessive nor disproportionate compared to similar cases.

criminal lawprocedure

Jackie Lebaron Ruffin, Jr. appealed the Mobile Circuit Court's revocation of his probation, which was based on allegations including a new domestic-violence offense. At the revocation hearing, the court relied on judicial notice of a district court's probable-cause finding from a preliminary hearing and unsworn statements by counsel and an officer, without hearing sworn testimony or nonhearsay evidence directly connecting Ruffin to the alleged offense. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the revocation, holding that Alabama law requires sufficient nonhearsay evidence to support revocation for a new criminal offense and that a probable-cause finding alone, which may rest on hearsay, does not meet this standard. The case was remanded for a compliant hearing under Rule 27.6, Ala. R. Crim. P., unless waived.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Brian Everett Hammock's appeal of his convictions for second-degree assault, obstructing governmental operations, resisting arrest, improper lane usage, and driving under the influence, arising from an incident where he drove on the wrong side of the road, refused to exit his vehicle during a traffic stop, and physically resisted officers, resulting in injuries to the deputies. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions for assault, obstruction, and the other charges but reversed the resisting-arrest conviction. The court reasoned that amending the indictment by removing "resisting arrest" as surplusage was permissible under Rule 13.5(a) since it did not charge a new offense or prejudice the defendant, but the resisting-arrest and assault convictions violated double jeopardy principles because resisting arrest is a lesser-included offense of the charged assault under the facts of the case.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Brett Steven Amerson's appeal from multiple convictions, including reckless murder and manslaughter, stemming from a 2018 fatal collision in which he drove a box truck while intoxicated, turned in front of a motorcyclist, fled the scene, and later admitted to hitting the victim. On return to remand after an earlier reversal for a new-trial hearing, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals addressed Amerson's double-jeopardy claim that manslaughter is a lesser-included offense of reckless murder under the facts presented, as well as an illegal sentence for the failure-to-yield conviction. The court held that the manslaughter conviction violated double-jeopardy principles and must be vacated, noted that the 180-day jail sentence for failure to yield exceeded the statutory misdemeanor maximum of three months under the Alabama Rules of the Road Act, and directed the trial court to vacate the manslaughter and DUI convictions, conduct a new sentencing hearing, and impose a corrected sentence. The matter was remanded with instructions for further proceedings and return to the appellate court within 56 days.

criminal lawprocedure

In State of Alabama v. Joshua Lamont MacGrady, the State appealed a Jefferson Circuit Court order dismissing a first-degree receiving stolen property charge against the defendant on speedy-trial grounds. MacGrady was arrested in February 2022 after driving a rental truck reported stolen, demanded a speedy trial in March 2022, and moved to dismiss in 2023 citing the delay; the trial court granted dismissal after finding prejudice from the length of time the case remained pending. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the four Barker v. Wingo factors de novo and held that the roughly 21-month delay did not create presumed prejudice, that MacGrady failed to prove actual prejudice (noting his prior felony convictions undermined claims of employment harm), and that the remaining factors did not justify dismissal. The court therefore reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Terrance Rashaun Moore's conviction for first-degree elder abuse after he grabbed and twisted the arms of 70-year-old Brenda Hunt while she was writing down his license plate number, causing skin tears, bleeding, bruising, and a scar. Moore appealed, arguing that the State failed to prove Hunt sustained a serious physical injury as required for the first-degree offense under Alabama law. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that the scar, measuring about an inch on her forearm, did not qualify as serious disfigurement because it would not make her appearance distressing or objectionable to a reasonable observer. The court therefore reversed the first-degree conviction but remanded with instructions to enter a judgment on the lesser-included offense of second-degree elder abuse, which requires only physical injury.

criminal law

Lewis was convicted by a jury of trafficking in a synthetic controlled substance and sentenced as a habitual felony offender to life in prison. The circuit court imposed a $1,000 drug-demand-reduction assessment under § 13A-12-281 rather than the $2,000 required for a second or subsequent offense. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence by unpublished memorandum. A partial dissent would have remanded for imposition of the correct assessment amount, noting that prior precedent treated the assessment as mandatory on direct appeal when not waived.

criminal law

This case concerns Garron Bethel's sixth Rule 32 petition challenging his 1998 convictions for third-degree receiving stolen property and two counts of illegal possession of credit cards, along with his resulting 20-year sentences. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama affirmed the circuit court's denial of the petition by unpublished memorandum. In a special concurrence, one judge observed that Bethel's repeated filings involve claims that are either precluded or without merit and recommended that the circuit court consider sanctions to deter future frivolous postconviction litigation by Bethel and similar inmates.

criminal lawprocedure

Jesse Pettaway Jr. filed his ninth Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition challenging his 1981 conviction for first-degree rape and resulting life sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama affirmed the circuit court's ruling by unpublished memorandum, with Judges Welch and Main concurring. Judge Kellum concurred specially, observing that the claims in the petition were either precluded or without merit and recommending that the circuit court consider sanctions, such as those discussed in prior cases, to deter repetitive frivolous filings by Pettaway and similar inmates.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Ronnie Lee Gholston's appeal of his convictions for first-degree rape, kidnapping, robbery, theft of property, and unauthorized use of a vehicle arising from an incident in which he abducted a store employee at gunpoint, raped her, took money from her workplace, and stole her car. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences for rape, kidnapping, robbery, and unauthorized use of a vehicle. It reversed the theft conviction, however, because the theft offense was a lesser-included offense of the robbery conviction under the facts alleged, violating double-jeopardy principles. The court rejected Gholston's claim that the jury venire underrepresented African-Americans, finding no evidence of systematic exclusion in the jury-selection process.

criminal lawprocedure

Christopher Thomas Johnson was convicted of capital murder under Alabama law for intentionally killing his six-month-old son and was sentenced to death following a guilty plea. After resting his case at trial, Johnson invoked his right to represent himself, was allowed to testify, and then changed his plea to guilty; he later waived counsel on appeal and declined to file a brief. The court conducted an automatic review required in death penalty cases, confirming that Johnson's waivers of counsel were knowing and voluntary, that the evidence was sufficient based on his admissions and other proof, and that the sole aggravating circumstance outweighed any mitigating factors. It further determined the death sentence was neither excessive nor disproportionate compared to similar cases and found no plain error in the proceedings. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

In VanPelt v. State, Kim Vanpelt appealed his conviction for capital murder under Alabama law for killing his wife Sandra for pecuniary gain, along with his resulting death sentence recommended by a 10-2 jury vote. The State's evidence included Vanpelt's procurement of a $300,000 life insurance policy naming himself as beneficiary shortly before the murder, inconsistencies between his statements and the medical examiner's findings on time of death, blood traces in the couple's home detected by luminol, and his attempts while incarcerated to arrange a false confession. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the trial court committed no plain error in its penalty-phase instructions on aggravating and mitigating circumstances, reasonable doubt, or related issues.

criminal law

In Moore v. State, Preston Louis Moore was convicted of capital murder committed during a burglary and two counts of attempted murder based on a 2003 shooting at a residence in Oxford, Alabama, where witnesses identified him as one of the shooters who killed one victim and wounded another. On appeal, the court considered whether the trial court properly admitted evidence of Moore's 1993 robbery conviction to prove a common plan or scheme. The appellate court held that the admission was error because the prior robbery lacked distinctive facts marking it as a signature crime similar to the charged offenses, and the error was not harmless given the conflicting identifications and Moore's alibi evidence. Accordingly, the court reversed the convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved John Frederick Burton's appeal from his manslaughter conviction under Alabama law after he was indicted for murder in the stabbing death of Francisco Randolph during an argument. Burton argued that the trial court erred by denying his request for a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of criminally negligent homicide, based on his testimony that Randolph ran into scissors Burton was holding while moving them to enter his vehicle. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction by unpublished memorandum, holding that the evidence did not support a criminal-negligence instruction because it showed Burton intentionally held the scissors as a warning while Randolph charged at him. The majority also noted Burton's post-stabbing conduct in refusing to promptly seek medical help for Randolph as inconsistent with negligence. A dissent argued that Burton's account provided a rational basis for the jury to find criminal negligence, warranting the instruction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Shana Lee Barrett, who was convicted of reckless manslaughter after a fatal car accident where she was driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.096% and struck another vehicle, causing the driver's death. Barrett appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on vehicular homicide as a lesser-included offense. The appellate court agreed, holding that under the facts, vehicular homicide requires proof of the same or fewer facts than reckless manslaughter, making it a lesser-included offense per Alabama law and precedent. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, finding the error was not harmless because the jury might have convicted on the lesser offense if instructed.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Cowling, the State appealed a circuit court order granting the defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle after police detained him near a duplex subject to a search warrant for alcohol violations. The facts showed officers approached a group including Cowling, who fled on foot; after detaining them, an officer smelled marijuana smoke from Cowling's car and searched it, finding marijuana, scales, and paraphernalia, leading to drug possession charges. The court held that the initial detention was supported by reasonable suspicion under Terry v. Ohio because the individuals ran from a location where drugs were expected, and the warrantless vehicle search was justified by the automobile exception due to the plain smell of burning marijuana providing probable cause. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the suppression order and remanded the case.

criminal lawprocedure