Justia Alabama Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jason Tulley was convicted of carrying a pistol on premises not his own in violation of a Jacksonville city ordinance. The Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari review to determine whether by charging him under Ordinance No. O-514-10, which incorporated by general reference section 13A-11-52 Ala. Code 1975, the City violated Tulley's due-process rights. After review, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirming Tulley's conviction. At the time of Tulley's alleged offense, 13A-11-52 was unconstitutional on its face, and the City's purported adoption of that offense as an offense against the City by general reference in Ordinance No. O-514-10 was a nullity. Accordingly, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict Tulley. View "Ex parte Jason Dean Tulley." on Justia Law

In 1993, Michael Biddle was convicted in South Carolina of a lewd act upon a child, a violation of S.C. Code 16-15-140. He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment; his sentence was suspended and he was ordered to serve 5 years on probation. Biddle moved to Alabama in January 2014. Under section 15-20A-10 of the Alabama Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act ("ASORCNA"), Biddle's conviction required that he register as a sex offender, and subjected him to certain residency restrictions. On January 22, 2014, Biddle registered with the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department as a sex offender in compliance with ASORCNA. About a month later, Biddle filed a form averring that he was residing at an address in Jefferson County that was not within 2,000 feet of a school or a child-care facility. Biddle was ultimately indicted for two counts of violating the residency requirements of 15-20A-11. After a bench trial, Biddle was found not guilty on both counts. That same day and in the same proceeding, Biddle filed, in the criminal division of the Jefferson Circuit Court, a petition pursuant to 15-20A-23 that he may be relieved of the residency restrictions of the ASORCNA if he was "terminally ill or permanently immobile." Biddle alleged in his petition that he was terminally ill, that he needed a full-time caregiver, and that his sister lived in Vestavia Hills and would care for him if he resided with her. Biddle did not pay a filing fee to the circuit court for filing his petition, and he did not file the petition as a new civil case. The State filed an objection, challenging the circuit court's jurisdiction and asserting that Biddle's petition was incomplete because he had not paid a filing fee or sought in forma pauperis status. The circuit court granted Biddle's petition for relief, and the State filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court concluded the State had a clear legal right to the relief sought because the circuit court, sitting in a completed criminal case, lacked jurisdiction to relieve Biddle from the residency requirements of the ASORCNA in what should have been a civil proceeding. Biddle should have filed a "new" civil action in order to seek relief from the residency requirements of the ASORCNA. View "Alabama v. Biddle" on Justia Law

Christopher Floyd was convicted of capital murder in 2005 for the death of Waylon Crawford, for which he was sentenced to death. The Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari review of Floyd's appeal to determine whether the following holdings of the Court of Criminal Appeals were proper: (1) that the trial court did not err in holding that the State provided valid race- and gender-neutral reasons for its exercise of its peremptory strikes during jury selection; (2) that the trial court did not err by refusing to admit into evidence all of Floyd's statements made to law-enforcement officers; and (3) that the trial court did not err in denying Floyd's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Ex parte Christopher Anthony Floyd." on Justia Law

The Alabama Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to address the State's request that it overrule "Ex parte J.A.P.," (853 So. 2d 280 (Ala. 2002)), the controlling precedent applied by the Court of Criminal Appeals in reversing Eric Higdon's conviction for first-degree sodomy by forcible compulsion. "In overruling 'Ex parte J.A.P.,' this Court returns to an approach more consonant with the statutory definition of forcible compulsion and the principles set forth in a 'Powe [v. Alabama, (597 So.2d 721 (Ala. 1991))]' in conducting a forcible-compulsion analysis when a defendant, regardless of his or her age, exercises a position of domination and control over a child." The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals was reversed, and this case remanded for further proceedings. View "Ex parte State of Alabama." on Justia Law

In August 2011, Teddy Knox was driving along Interstate 59 in Fort Payne. Officer Matt Wilson of the Fort Payne Police Department stopped Knox's vehicle for improper lane use. During the stop, Officer Wilson became suspicious that Knox might be transporting drugs, and he requested backup from Officer Tony Blackwell, who was a member of the county drug task force and who had his drug-detection dog with him. Lt. Randy Garrison, another member of the drug task force, was also en route to the scene. Officer Wilson eventually issued a warning citation to Knox and told him that he was free to go, but he continued to question Knox about his travel plans. Lt. Garrison and Officer Blackwell arrived at some point during the questioning of Knox. After Officer Blackwell arrived with his dog, Officer Wilson asked Knox if he would consent to a search of his vehicle. Knox refused to consent, and Officer Blackwell then deployed his dog to perform a free-air sniff. The dog "indicated" for the odor of marijuana, and the police eventually searched the vehicle and discovered marijuana. The police seized in excess of 2.2 pounds of marijuana and arrested Knox for trafficking in marijuana, unlawful possession of marijuana, and first-degree unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. Knox filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the marijuana seized during the traffic stop. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court entered a written order granting the motion to suppress. The State appealed; the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the judgment on a ground not raised in the circuit court: that Knox was no longer being detained at the time the search was executed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, surmising that it was likely that the State's failure to raise the absence-of-detention argument before the circuit court may have deprived Knox of an opportunity to present evidence in opposition to that theory. "The primary focus of the suppression hearing was the existence of reasonable suspicion, which was based largely on the police officers' observations. Had the State raised the absence-of-detention argument in the circuit court, it is possible that Knox might have chosen to present evidence as to (1) whether he felt free to leave the scene after he was given his warning citation and (2) whether there was a showing of authority sufficient to constitute a detention. By failing to raise this new issue at trial, the State deprived Knox of an opportunity to present evidence and to make arguments. The State's failure to raise the issue also deprived the circuit court of the opportunity to make factual findings and credibility determinations on this issue." View "Ex parte Knox." on Justia Law

Inmate Charleton Thomas petitioned for postconviction relief, which the circuit court summarily dismissed. The Court of Criminal Appeals, by unpublished memorandum, affirmed the summary dismissal of Thomas's petition, concluding that Thomas's Rule 32 petition was untimely because, at the time he filed his Rule 32 petition, Thomas had not paid the filing fee or filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that the evidence in the record created a question of material fact as to whether Thomas's in forma pauperis declaration was filed with his Rule 32 petition, so as to render the Rule 32 petition timely. View "Ex parte Thomas." on Justia Law

Christopher Floyd was convicted for the 2005 murder of Waylon Crawford, for which he was sentenced to death. The Alabama Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to determine whether the following holdings of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Floyd's appeal of his capital-murder conviction were proper: that the the trial court did not err in holding that the State provided valid race- and gender-neutral reasons for its exercise of its peremptory strikes during jury selection; that the trial court did not err by refusing to admit into evidence all of Floyd's statements made to law-enforcement officers; and that the trial court did not err in denying Floyd's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Ex parte Christopher Floyd" on Justia Law

Plaintiff James Freeman, a parolee whose earlier parole from a life sentence for murder was revoked, appealed a trial court's dismissal of his claims against the City of Birmingham; Birmingham Police Officer Dewayne Holyfield, Charles W. Edwards; and Alma Berry, alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, and conspiracy. Freeman was convicted of first-degree murder in 1975, and was sentenced to life in prison. He was granted parole in 1993. In 1995, Officer Holyfield responded to a complaint that a man was beating a female near 14th Avenue North in Birmingham. Officer Holyfield drove to that address and discovered a female whose neck had been scratched and whose eyes were blackened and swollen. She claimed that Freeman had attacked her. Based on this incident, a warrant was issued the next day for Freeman's arrest. He was arrested and charged with "domestic assault" hours after the warrant was issued. As a result of the arrest, Edwards, then the executive director of the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles, initiated parole-revocation proceedings against Freeman. Berry was the parole-revocation hearing officer at the proceedings. Berry found sufficient evidence to support the charge of domestic assault against Freeman, and recommended the revocation of Freeman's parole. A member of the Board of Pardons and Paroles adjudged Freeman guilty of domestic assault and revoked his parole. At the time his parole was revoked, no court had adjudged Freeman guilty of domestic assault. Freeman was incarcerated and remained in prison until March 7, 2011, when he was again released on parole. From 1995 to 2011, Freeman was denied parole six times, based in part, he alleges, on his having committed the offense of domestic assault, of which he had never been convicted. In 2012, Freeman reported to the municipal court in Birmingham "to address the 1995 charge of 'domestic assault.'" He claimed that, when he arrived at the municipal court, he learned for the first time that the 1995 charge was assault and battery and not domestic assault. Freeman filed this suit in 2014, more than 18 years after the revocation of his parole in 1995 and 2 years, 11 months, and 29 days after he appeared in the municipal court in Birmingham and allegedly learned of the assault-and-battery charge against him. After review of Freeman's arguments on appeal of the trial court's dismissal of his claims, the Supreme Court found no reversible error, and affirmed the dismissal of those claims. View "Freeman v. Holyfield" on Justia Law

In August 2000, when Jimmy Williams, Jr. was 15 years old, he was convicted of murder made capital because it was committed during a robbery. In accordance with the applicable law at the time of Williams's sentencing, the trial court sentenced Williams to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, the only possible sentence and one that was mandatory. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Williams's conviction and sentence. In June 2013, Williams petitioned the circuit court, asserting that under the rule announced by the United States Supreme Court in "Miller v. Alabama," (132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012)), the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole to which he was sentenced in 2000 for an offense committed when he was 15 years old was unconstitutional and, consequently, that he was entitled to be resentenced based on the individualized sentencing factors discussed in Miller. The issue in this case presented for the Alabama Supreme Court's review was whether "Miller" applied retroactively to Williams' case. Because Miller did not categorically forbid a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for a juvenile defendant and because Miller did not apply retroactively, Williams's sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole was legal. The Alabama Supreme Court concluded the Court of Criminal Appeals did not err in denying Williams the relief he requested. View "Ex parte Jimmy Williams, Jr." on Justia Law

John Harper, an incarcerated inmate, petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court to review the circuit court's denial of his latest motion for sentence reconsideration. Harper was convicted in 1986 of first-degree armed robbery. Based on that conviction and a prior felony conviction, the circuit court sentenced him as a habitual felony offender to what in 1986 was a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole. Because the circuit court did not consider all the factors and evidence, including records of the Department of Corrections, that Harper presented with his "Kirby" motion, the Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court did not consider the totality of the circumstances. For the same reasons, the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in affirming the circuit court's order denying Harper's Kirby motion. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment and directed that court to remand the case to the circuit court for it to reconsider Harper's Kirby motion. "We note in conclusion that the window for the review of Kirby motions has been closing since the repeal of 13A-5-9.1, effective March 1, 2014. After 28 years of incarceration, Harper is faced with his last opportunity to take advantage of 13A-5-9.1. He has done exactly what a previous court said he must do for reconsideration of his sentence as a current nonviolent convicted offender. Justice demands that he have an opportunity provided by that law for reconsideration of his sentence." View "Ex parte John Alfred Harper." on Justia Law