Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In June 2011, Jerry Bohannon was charged with and convicted of two counts of capital murder in connection with the shooting deaths of Jerry DuBoise and Anthony Harvey outside the Paradise Lounge in Mobile. He received the death penalty. He raised four grounds on appeal of the conviction and sentence, alleging: (1) his death sentence should have been vacated in light of "Hurst v. Florida," (136 S.Ct. 616 (2016)); (2) the circuit court erred in characterizing the jury's penalty-phase determination as a recommendation and as advisory, conflicting with "Hurst;" (3) the circuit court erred in allowing the State to question defense character witnesses about Bohannon's alleged acts on the night of the shooting; and (4) the circuit court erred in failing to sua sponte instruct the jury on the victims' intoxication. Finding no reversible error in the Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment to affirm Bohannon's conviction and sentence, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Ex parte Jerry Bohannon" on Justia Law

Jacquees Maurice Boone was convicted of attempted murder, for which he was sentenced as an habitual felony offender to life imprisonment. On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, Boone argued that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that he was affiliated with a "gang." The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Boone's conviction and sentence in an unpublished memorandum, reasoning that the evidence was relevant under Rule 404(b), Ala. R. Evid., to prove motive. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court disagreed, reversed and remanded for further proceedings: "The record does not disclose any evidence indicating that [the victim] Cooley or anyone in his family was a member of a gang. The motive advanced by the State at trial was that there was animosity between Boone and his friends, on the one hand, and Cooley's family, on the other hand, arising from the participation of Cooley's mother in police drug investigations that led to the arrest of Boone's friends. The State does not explain how the evidence of 'gang' affiliation is relevant to Boone's motive for shooting Cooley." View "Ex parte Jacquees Maurice Boone." on Justia Law

While serving a subpoena on Christopher Okafor at the residence of Shanna Hereford, law-enforcement officers noticed a strong smell of marijuana and entered the residence. When an officer asked Okafor if there was marijuana in the residence, Okafor responded that there was. When the officers requested that Okafor sign a consent form to permit a search the residence, Okafor informed them that he did not live at the residence and that he could not sign a consent form to search the residence. Okafor, however, led the officers to the marijuana, which was located in a white plastic bag in the closet of a downstairs bedroom. A subsequent search of the bedroom resulted in the seizure of not only the marijuana, but also $16,500 in cash. Okafor denied any knowledge or ownership of the currency. The State filed a complaint against Okafor seeking to condemn the $16,500 seized from Hereford's residence. Okafor filed an answer in which he stated that he was the lawful owner of the currency, that the currency was not subject to condemnation, and that the law-enforcement officers had seized the currency during an unlawful search. The State moved for a summary judgment; Okafor, amongst other things, argued that the officers did not have probable cause or consent to enter Hereford's residence and that any consent that they may have gotten for the search of the residence was not given knowingly, intelligently, and/or freely. The Court of Civil Appeals, in a per curiam opinion, reversed the summary judgment, finding that Okafor presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of material fact with regard to the legality of the search of Hereford's residence and the legality of the seizure of the currency. The Supreme Court disagreed: because Okafor did not demonstrate that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy or a proprietary interest in Hereford's residence, he did not establish that he had standing to challenge the search of the residence and the seizure of the currency. View "Ex parte State of Alabama." on Justia Law

An issue implicating the "prison mailbox rule" came before the Supreme Court in this case. The rule, codified at Ala. Code 1975 13A-5-9.1, was revised to place a time limit on motions like the motion for reconsideration of sentence underlying this appeal, and a question arose as to whether the statute's time limit applied here. The Supreme Court concluded the time limit did appeal, and reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals' holding to the contrary. View "Ex parte Joe Louis Spencer." on Justia Law

Amanda Holderfield was convicted of second-degree assault. She was sentenced to 60 months' imprisonment; that sentence was suspended, and Holderfield was ordered to serve 3 years' supervised probation, to undergo mental-health treatment and substance-abuse treatment, to pay $100 to the Alabama Crime Victims Compensation Fund, and to pay restitution of $2,219.99 to the "City of Gardendale Municipal Works Comp Fund." Holderfield filed a "Motion to Set Aside Order of Restitution and Request Hearing," which the circuit court later denied. The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Holderfield's appeal, without an opinion. The Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari review to determine whether a motion to modify or set aside a restitution order in a criminal case should be treated as a motion for a new trial under Rule 24.1, Ala. R. Crim. P., with regard to tolling the time for taking an appeal. After review, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissing the appeal in this case as untimely, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Ex parte Amanda Holderfield." on Justia Law

Sabrina Jackson, as the administratrix of the estate of Tony Lewis, Jr., deceased, filed a verified petition requesting preaction discovery from defendants the City of Montgomery ("the City") and QCHC, Inc., a/k/a Quality Correctional Health Care ("Quality"). Lewis was being held in the Montgomery municipal jail when he died unexpectedly on the night of January 12, 2015, or the early morning hours of January 13, 2015. Petitioner believed jail authorities and health care personnel were negligent and deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of Lewis, and thereby denied him treatment needed to save his life, if said treatment had been administered promptly. The petition also alleged that Lewis was given some medication by the health care personnel, which may have caused him to stop breathing, and that this act "may have amounted to negligent malpractice and/or deliberate indifference." The circuit court granted the preaction discovery petition, but the defendants applied for mandamus relief. The Supreme Court granted the petitions and issued the writs, finding that Jackson could not establish that she was unable to bring an action or that preaction discovery was necessary to preserve evidence in her case. View "Ex parte QCHC, Inc., a/k/a Quality Correctional Health Care." on Justia Law

The Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari review to determine whether there was a "fatal variance" between the indictment, which charged James Hall with theft of "currency," and the evidence produced at trial, which established theft of the funds by means of depositing a check. Hall was the "commander" of the Houston County chapter (Chapter 87) of the Disabled American Veterans ("the DAV"). In 2013, Hall had issued to himself a check from the DAV's bank account in the amount of $1,500, purportedly to reimburse Hall for expenses incurred in the performance of his duties as commander. He deposited the check into his personal bank account. The expenditure, however, had not been approved by the DAV chapter and, therefore, violated the provisions of the DAV's constitution and bylaws. The DAV requested that Hall reimburse the funds to the DAV and provide the DAV with documentation supporting the alleged expenses. Hall failed to do so. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no material variance in the indictment and the evidence, and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. View "Ex parte James R. Hall." on Justia Law

Petitioners-inmates Curtis Cook and Joe Hold, Jr. filed "petition[s] for release order" pursuant to the Alabama Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (APLRA). Petitioners also filed requests for in forma pauperis ("IFP") status. Both requests for IPF status would ultimately be denied. Then both filed for writs of mandamus relief, seeking that the Court of Criminal Appeals set aside the IFP orders. The Court of Criminal Appeals determined it lacked jurisdiction over the cases and remanded to the Court of Civil Appeals. The Court of Civil Appeals determined it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the petitions to the Supreme Court. Cook's and Holt's mandamus petitions arose from actions seeking relief based on the conditions of their incarceration, rather than from actions giving rise to their incarceration. Therefore, the proceedings underlying the petitions are civil, not criminal, in nature. However, the mere fact that the Department of Corrections was the agency charged with overseeing Cook's and Holt's incarceration did not bring their mandamus petitions within the Court of Civil Appeals' exclusive appellate jurisdiction either. Having determined that only the Supreme Court could review the cases, the Court then turned to the merits of petitioners' claims. The Court then found neither petitioner met his burden proving he was entitled to mandamus relief, and denied both requests. View "Ex parte Curtis J. Cook, Jr." on Justia Law

The Alabama Department of Corrections ("the DOC"); Cheryl Price, former warden of Bibb Correctional Facility; Dwayne Estes, former assistant warden of the facility; and Captain John Hutton, a correctional officer at the facility, petitioned for a writ of mandamus to direct the Montgomery Circuit Court to vacate its order denying their motion for a summary judgment and to enter a new order granting the motion on the ground that they were entitled to immunity. The suit against defendants arose over the stabbing death of Tyus Elliot, who was allegedly killed by another inmate. Based on the evidence presented, the Supreme Court concluded defendants were entitled to immunity from all claims. Accordingly, defendants have shown a clear legal right to the relief sought, and the circuit court was directed to enter a summary judgment in their favor. View "Ex parte Alabama Department of Corrections et al." on Justia Law

Devonte Acosta was convicted of first-degree burglary and was sentenced to 156 months in prison. Acosta argued to the Court of Criminal Appeals that the trial court improperly prevented him from presenting his defense that he was not present during the burglary at trial by refusing to admit certain statements into evidence. After concluding that Acosta's argument was properly preserved for appellate review, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court erred in refusing to admit the statements in question. The Court reasoned that the trial court's strict application of the hearsay rule deprived Acosta of the ability to present a complete defense. Upon review of the record, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded that Acosta's fundamental rights to a fair trial and to due process were not violated by the trial court's refusal to admit the statements into evidence. The court of Criminal Appeals was therefore reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Ex parte State of Alabama." on Justia Law