Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Amy Bishop Anderson petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Madison Circuit Court to compel the Office of Indigent Defense Services and the Comptroller's Office within the Department of Finance to comply with the circuit court's orders and disburse interim payments of fees to her retained experts. Upon review, the Supreme Court denied the petition. Anderson was indicted on charges of capital murder and attempted murder after she shot several of her colleagues during a biology-department faculty meeting at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2010. Defendant's defense counsel served notice that they indended to argue that Defendant was not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. The circuit court entered an order granting defense counsel's ex parte motion for extraordinary expenses. The circuit court authorized defense counsel to retain the services of a neuropsychiatrist who evaluated Defendant, and ordered the comptroller to make immediate payment to cover the expert's retainer. According to Defendant, the expert began working on the case with a reasonable expectation of being paid at a later date. No payment was made. The Supreme Court concluded that while the circuit court entered the orders directing interim payments for Defendant's experts, Defendant did not show that the circuit court refused to enforce those orders. Based on this, Defendant did not satisfy her burden that the circuit court refused to enforce its orders.

Defendant Amy Bishop Anderson petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Madison Circuit Court to compel the Office of Indigent Services and the Comptroller's Office within the state Department of Finance to comply with the circuit court's orders and disburse interim payments of fees to her retained experts. Anderson was indicted on charges of capital murder and attempted murder after she shot several of her colleagues during a biology-department faculty meeting at the University of Alabama in Huntsville on February 2, 2010. Anderson's defense counsel served notice that they intended to argue that Anderson was not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. The circuit court entered an order granting defense counsel's ex parte motion for extraordinary expenses, but no payment was made in response to the court's order. Finding that Anderson did not show that she satisfied her burden of showing a refusal by the circuit court to enforce its orders, the Supreme Court denied Anderson's petition for the writ of mandamus.

Several Citites and their employees, police officers J.J. Oglesby, J.M. Stewart, A.T. Caffey, Q.O. Commander, and N.W. McMahon petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Circuit Court to enter a summary judgment in their favor on certain claims asserted against them by Plaintiffs Dashad Berry, Kamessa Williams, and Miguel Johnson. Plaintiffs' claims stemmed from a traffic stops conducted by the City officers. Each of plaintiffs suffer from a type of paralysis that inhibited their abilities to respond quickly and directly to officers' orders incident to the officers' initial investigations. Plaintiffs sued the City and the individual officers alleging assault and battery, wantonness, negligence, negligent hiring, negligent training and negligent supervision. A trial court entered an order denying the City and officers' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the City and officers argued they were immune to Plaintiffs' claims. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Officers Oglesby and McMahon showed a clear legal right to the relief sought, and, as to them, their petition was granted and the trial court was directed to enter a summary judgment in their favor. Officers Stewart, Commander, and Caffey failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief they sought, and, as to them, their petition was denied. However, the City has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought as to the claims against it based on the acts of Officers Stewart, Commander, and Caffey, and its petition was denied as to those claims. Finally, the City has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought based on the claims alleging negligent hiring, training, and supervision, and its petition was denied as to those claims.

American Family Care, Inc. (AFC) petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Jefferson Circuit Court to vacate its order staying a civil action filed by AFC against Anita Salters. Salters was a former employee of AFC, acting as the director of the center from 2007 to June 2010 before her employment was terminated. As director, she was responsible for handling billing issues and claim audits performed by insurance companies and governmental agencies. In some instances, Salters had the only copies of communications related to billing inquiries and claim audits. In April 2011, the Federal Bureau of Investigation executed a search warrant at AFC's corporate office. The FBI removed mostly billing records. After the search warrant was executed, AFC determined that it was missing corporate records it would need to defend itself against any criminal charges that might be filed as a result of the FBI investigation. According to AFC, several of its employees reported that Salters had been seen removing files and records from the corporate offices shortly before she was fired. AFC made written demand upon Salters for the return of the records, but she did not respond. AFC then sued Salters seeking the return of any business records she might have. Salters answered the complaint, denying that she had removed any AFC records from its offices. The trial court, sua sponte, entered an order staying AFC's action "until further notice." The trial court expressed no reason for entering the indefinite stay. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the indefinite stay ordered by the trial court, with no stated justification for it, was "immoderate" and beyond the scope of the trial court's discretion. For that reason, the Court granted AFC's petition and issued a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to vacate its order staying AFC's action against Salters.

Following a 1987 conviction for first-degree theft of property and his unsuccessful direct appeal of that conviction, Defendant Joseph Pate filed a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim P. petition (Rule 32) for relief. The circuit court summarily denied his petition. Defendant filed a second Rule 32 petition in 2010. In the petition, he asserted that: his sentence was illegal because the trial court improperly used two of his prior controlled-substance convictions as sentence enhancements; and, that the State failed to provide notice that it intended to proceed under the Habitual Felony Offender Act for sentence enhancement. The State moved to dismiss, asserting that the petition was barred because those claims could have been, but were not, raised at trial, and because those claims could have been, but were not, raised on appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the circuit court's denial of Defendant's Rule 32 petition without an opinion. On appeal, Defendant contended that in not addressing the denial of his motion for sentence reconsideration the Court of Criminal Appeals incorrectly applied the law to the facts of his case. Because the record supported Defendant's claim that his request for sentence modification was made in a separate motion, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in concluding that the claim was not proper for appellate review. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's judgment to the extent it held that the trial court's ruling on Defendant's request for sentence reconsideration was not properly before it, and remanded the case for the Court of Criminal Appeals to review the circuit court's denial of Defendant's motion for sentence modification.

Defendant Ralph Burnell petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Bibb Circuit Court to vacate its 2011 order that denied his motion to dismiss claims Plaintiff Christi Burry Kelley filed against him. In 2007 while she was an inmate at the Bibb County jail, Plaintiff slipped in the shower and was injured. Petitioner was the warden of the jail at the time. Plaintiff sued the warden, the jail, the sheriff's department, and the sheriff, alleging negligence and wantonness. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing among other things that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims against them under state immunity. The trial court dismissed as to the County, the jail and the sheriff's department and sheriff, but denied the motion as to Defendant. Defendant argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that he was entitled to State immunity because he was being sued for money damages for actions that arose out of his performance of his duties as a deputy sheriff. Finding that Defendant established a clear legal right to the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against him, the Supreme Court issued the writ.

The State of Alabama petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the Court of Criminal Appeals to vacate its order that granted a mandamus petition filed by Jeremy B. Jones, and that directed Mobile Circuit Judge Charles Graddick to recuse himself from presiding over Jones's postconviction proceedings. In October 2005, Judge Graddick presided over a trial in which Jones was convicted on four counts of capital murder and was sentenced to death. The jury was sequestered throughout the trial, which lasted several days. After his conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal, Jones filed a petition for postconviction relief. In that petition Jones alleged that juror "T.E." was unfit to serve on the jury on account of alcohol dependence and that T.E. had failed to answer truthfully certain questions on voir dire regarding his alcohol dependence. According to Jones, posttrial interviews revealed: (1) that T.E. had told Judge Graddick during Jones's trial that he was an alcoholic; (2) that T.E. had received permission from Judge Graddick to drink alcohol during sequestration; and (3) that Judge Graddick did not inform Jones's counsel that T.E. had requested such permission and that Judge Graddick had granted it. Jones's petition alleged juror misconduct, as well as juror incompetence. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that because Judge Graddick would not be a material witness in Jones's postconviction proceedings, no "reasonable person knowing everything that the judge knows would have a 'reasonable basis for questioning the judge's impartiality.'" Thus, the Court held Judge Graddick did not exceed his discretion in denying Jones's motion for his recusal, and the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding that he did. The Court granted the State's petition for mandamus.

The issue before the Supreme Court pertained to the admissibility into evidence a child witness's prior inconsistent out-of-court statements. The Court granted certiorari to address this as an issue of first impression: whether a part of the Child Physical and Sexual Abuse Victim Protection Act conflicted with the Alabama Rules of Evidence. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that an "inherent tension" existed between the Act and the Rules of Evidence insofar as it permitted a prior inconsistent out-of-court statement of a child witness to be considered substantive evidence of asserted facts when the rules considered those statements as hearsay. "M.L.H." was adjudicated a youthful offender based on the trial court's finding that he was guilty of first-degree sodomy, and he was sentenced accordingly. M.L.H. appealed, and the Court of Criminal Appeals determined that M.L.H.'s prior out-of-court statements, although admissible as substantive evidence under the Act, were inadmissible as substantive evidence under the rules of evidence. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The State appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals, finding no conflict between the Act and the rules of evidence. The case was remanded for reassessment of the substantive admissibility of M.L.H.'s prior inconsistent out-of-court statements.

Melvin Jarrett petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Criminal Appeals' unpublished memorandum affirming the circuit court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief. Jarrett challenged his 2006 guilty-plea conviction for one count of failing to comply with the requirement of the Community Notification Act (CNA) that he provide notice of his intent to move his legal residence. Jarrett alleged, as he did before the Court of Criminal Appeals, that his 15-year sentence imposed following his conviction for violating the CNA was illegal. Specifically, Jarrett contended that his offense was complete before October 1, 2005, the effective date of the amendment to the CNA which changed the violation from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class C felony. Jarrett argued that the offense to which he pleaded guilty was, at the time he committed it was only a misdemeanor, not a Class C felony, thus, his 15-year sentence was not authorized by law. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with Jarrett and reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals' sentence.

Ashley Rich, district attorney of Mobile County, and the State filed separate petitions for a writ of mandamus directed to the Montgomery Circuit Court in an inverse-condemnation action filed by Jesse Griffin and others. Griffin filed the Montgomery action seeking compensation for property, namely electronic "bingo" machines and related equipment and money, previously confiscated by the State from Griffin's facility in Mobile County. Rich and the State each argued that the Montgomery Circuit Court was without subject-matter jurisdiction to interfere with the executive branch's enforcement of the criminal law, and without jurisdiction based on principles of sovereign immunity. In 2010, Griffin opened and operated a facility in containing 25 electronic devices Griffin promoted as lawful charitable bingo machines. That same day, members of the Governor's Task Force on Illegal Gambling seized the 25 machines, as well as other items, from the facility. The machines were transported to a state warehouse in Montgomery County to be stored temporarily. Upon review, the Supreme Court consolidated the petitions for the purpose of writing one Opinion, and granted them, issuing the writs. The Court concluded that neither the fact that the electronic-bingo machines were brought to Montgomery County to be temporarily stored nor the fact that Griffin filed the Montgomery action before the Mobile County district attorney filed the Mobile action erased the fact that the events in this case arose from a criminal action initiated by the investigation of the facility and the resulting seizure of the machines and other evidence, "[t]hus, Griffin's reliance on the duel-litigation statute and the compulsory-counterclaim rule is misplaced." The Court issued the writs and directed the circuit court to vacate its order in favor of Griffin.