Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Luther Pate, IV sought review of the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision to affirm his conviction for menacing. In a matter of first impression, the issues before the Supreme Court were: (1) whether lawfully arming oneself was a "physical action" as defined in the state menacing statute; and (2) whether defense-of-premises was applicable in this case. Finding that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in its analysis of the menacing statute, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that its reversal on the menacing issue pretermitted discussion of the defense-of-premises issue. View "Pate IV v. City of Tuscaloosa" on Justia Law

Petitioner Tonya Cate sought a writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to vacate its order requiring her to submit for a mental examination. She was indicted for capital murder and did not use the not-guilty-by-reason-of-mental-defect defense. At the onset, a mitigation expert was concerned Petitioner had not been subjected to the exam to determine her competency to stand trial. Petitioner's attorney filed a motion for a continuance for his client to be examined, but did not specify that the exam was only to determine competence. The State filed a motion to have Petitioner examined for both current mental condition and competency to stand trial. Petitioner claims to have not been served with a copy of the trial court's order that granted the State's motion, and objected. In her motion to avoid the exam, Petitioner asked in the alternative that if the exam took place, her attorney be present to advise her of her constitutional rights. Before the court ruled on the motion, Petitioner withdrew her original motion, citing the mitigation expert's concerns had been allayed. The court entered its order requiring Petitioner to submit to the examination for then-current mental state and at the time of the alleged crime. Petitioner argued that after withdrawing her own motion for an examination, she could not be compelled to submit for examination. Because Petitioner did not use the mental-defect defense, the Supreme Court concluded that she could not be compelled to submit to the examination. Accordingly the Court granted the petition and issued the writ. View "Cate v. Alabama " on Justia Law

Roosevelt Upshaw appealed a circuit court's decision to deny his petition for habeas relief. In his petition, Upshaw alleged that the Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC") had erred in calculating the term of his sentence after he was arrested while on parole in that ADOC unlawfully denied him credit under 15-22-32(a), Ala. Code 1975, for the time he was incarcerated in Georgia. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Upshaw v. Alabama" on Justia Law

Jermaine Parker was convicted of conspiracy to commit a controlled-substance crime (the unlawful distribution of cocaine), and of obstructing governmental operations. The Supreme Court granted certiorari review to consider whether the decision of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, which affirmed the convictions in an unpublished memorandum, conflicted with "Ex parte Williams," (468 So. 2d 99, 101 (Ala. 1985)) regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to support Parker's conviction for conspiracy to commit a controlled-substance crime. The Court denied certiorari review with regard to Parker's conviction for obstructing governmental operations. After review of the trial court record and the unpublished appellate court opinion, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence presented in this matter "speculative" in nature: "Such proof is always insufficient, unless it excludes, to a moral certainty, every other reasonable hypothesis, but that of the guilt of the accused. No matter how strong the circumstances, if they can be reconciled with the theory that some other person may have done the act, then the defendant is not shown to be guilty, by that full measure of proof which the law requires...." The Court reversed the appellate court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Ex parte Parker" on Justia Law

Derrick Ervin appealed a summary judgment in favor of the City of Birmingham seeking the return of $178,858. The money was taken pursuant to a search of a vehicle impounded by police in connection with suspected drug activity. During the search, officers found a black bag containing thirty-two bundles of cash, and a shoe box in the back seat containing six more bundles in U.S. currency. Officers also found assorted documents bearing Ervin's name inside the passenger compartment. Ervin did not contest those facts in federal district court. In this action, however, Ervin contended that the cash was initially seized by the Birmingham Police Department (BPD), not by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and that the cash was subsequently transferred by "unknown Birmingham police officers ... to the DEA to commence forfeiture or condemnation proceedings" in the federal court. The federal district court entered a final judgment forfeiting the $178,858 to the United States. Ervin did not appeal that judgment and did not seek any postjudgment relief from it in the federal court itself. Pursuant to "equitable sharing" of the seizure, the City received the majority of the cash for its role in the operation, and the DEA kept a small percentage. Ervin alleged that, because such forfeiture proceedings had never been instituted, he was entitled to the return of the subject property. "Even if all these contentions were correct, they amount only to an attack on the authority of the federal district court to exercise jurisdiction over the res in an in rem action, not an attack on the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal court over a forfeiture action brought under federal law. As such, they come too late and are being advanced in the wrong court." The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the forfeiture. View "Ervin v. City of Birmingham " on Justia Law

The State through the Alabama Attorney General, sought a writ of mandamus to direct the presiding judge of the Macon Circuit Court to issue a search warrant as to "certain allegedly illegal gambling devices and related items" at a facility known as "Quincy's 777 Casino at Victoryland" in Shorter. The Supreme Court granted the State's petition and issued the writ under seal until the execution of the warrant. The execution having been accomplished, the Supreme Court removed the seal from this matter and in this opinion, addressed the reasons for issuing the writ. Upon careful consideration of the case law and statutes pertaining to this matter, the Supreme Court expounded on eight points of contention it had with the circuit court for denying the warrant. The Court concluded that the circuit court exceeded its discretion in denying the warrant, and as such, the State was entitled to an order directing the court to grant the warrant application. View "Ex parte State of Alabama (In re: Sealed Case)" on Justia Law

Anthony Haywood and Daniel Hall appealed a circuit court judgment that dismissed claims against Sheriff Dorothy "Jean Dot" Alexander, which were filed as part of a counterclaim in an action filed against Phillip Eugene Green, Haywood, and Hall by Scott Cotney, an administrator at the Clay County jail. In 2010, Cotney sued Green, a former correctional officer at the jail, and Haywood and Hall, former inmates at the jail, alleging defamation, slander, libel, invasion of privacy, negligence, and wantonness. The claims resulted from a report filed by Green, Haywood, and Hall with the Alabama Department of Corrections, claiming that Cotney had used his position as an administrator at the jail to sexually abuse and/or to assault Haywood and Hall while they were incarcerated in the jail. Haywood and Hall argued that the circuit court erred in granting Sheriff Alexander's motion to dismiss the claims against her. Specifically, they argued: (1) that their failure to identify Sheriff Alexander as a third-party defendant rather than a counterclaim defendant was not fatal to their complaint; (2) that Haywood and Hall were convicted felons, not pretrial detainees, during the relevant period and therefore had certain rights under the Eighth Amendment; (3) that Haywood's and Hall's rights pursuant to Fourth Amendment were violated because they were subject to "numerous acts of unlawful strip searches and bodily invasion perpetrated upon them by Cotney while he was the administrator of the [jail]"; (4) that Sheriff Alexander was not entitled to immunity under the State or Federal constitutions. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Haywood and Hall did not demonstrate any error in the circuit court's decision to dismiss the federal claims against Sheriff Alexander in her official capacity or the state-law claims against her in both her official and individual capacities. Therefore, the circuit court's judgment was affirmed insofar as it dismissed those claims. However, at this stage of the proceedings Sheriff Alexander was not entitled to a dismissal of the federal claims against her in her individual capacity. View "Haywood v. Alexander " on Justia Law

Petitioners Hope Ankrom and Amanda Kimbrough each petitioned the Supreme Court for review of the Court of Criminal Appeals' decisions in their respective cases. The Court granted their petitions and consolidated the cases because both presented the same issue of first impression for the Court's consideration: whether the term "child" as used in section 26-15-3.2, Ala. Code 1975 (the chemical endangerment statute), included an unborn child. The appellate court concluded that it did, and the Supreme Court agreed. The Court of Criminal Appeals judgments was affirmed in both cases. View "Ankrom v. Alabama" on Justia Law

Anthony Ray Hinton petitioned the Jefferson Circuit Court for relief under Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., arguing that his trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to provide a qualified expert in his defense at his capital-murder trial. The circuit court denied Hinton's Rule 32 petition on the basis that Andrew Payne, the expert retained by defense counsel, was qualified to testify as a firearms-identification expert at Hinton's trial. Hinton appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals; the Court of Criminal Appeals, after remanding twice for the circuit court to address the issue, affirmed the circuit court's denial of Hinton's petition. Hinton then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court did indeed base its determination that Payne was qualified to testify as an expert upon the "cold trial record." As a result, it was in no better position than was an appellate court to make the determination it made. Accordingly, the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in applying the abuse-of-discretion standard of review. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's judgment and remanded the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals for it to apply a de novo standard of review in reviewing the circuit court's judgment that Payne was qualified to testify as a firearms-identification expert. View "Hinton v. Alabama" on Justia Law

Christopher Anthony Floyd petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirming his capital-murder conviction and his subsequent death sentence. The Court granted certiorari review to consider whether the Court of Criminal Appeals, following its plain-error review, failed to recognize as prejudicial any plain error it found in the proceeding in the trial court. Specifically, the Court granted certiorari review to consider: (1) whether the State used its peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner in violation of "Batson v. Kentucky," (476 U.S. 79 (1986)); (2) whether the trial court properly excluded certain statements to police as inadmissible hearsay; and (3) whether the trial court properly denied Floyd's motion for a new trial based on allegedly newly discovered evidence. The Court reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision based on the Batson issue and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "Floyd v. Alabama " on Justia Law