Ex parte Cochran
| Decision Date | 14 November 1986 |
| Citation | 500 So.2d 1064 |
| Parties | Ex parte James Willie COCHRAN. (Re: James Willie Cochran v. State of Alabama) 85-1162. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Richard S. Jaffe, Birmingham and Joel Sogol, Tuscaloosa and Don Heflin, Huntsville, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and William D. Little, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This death penalty case has been before this Court on one previous occasion. In Ex parte Cochran, 500 So.2d 1179 (Ala.1985), we affirmed defendant Cochran's conviction of robbery when the victim is intentionally killed, but we reversed his death sentence on the grounds that we could not tell whether the trial court had considered as evidence mitigating factors offered by the defendant. Our opinion stated, "For the reasons stated in part ten (X), we remand this cause to the Court of Criminal Appeals for that court to order a new sentencing hearing, at which the trial judge is required to issue specific written findings on all evidence of mitigating factors." On remand, the trial judge did not hold a new sentencing hearing but did make specific written findings and resentenced defendant to death. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed this resentencing.
The only issue before us is whether the trial court erred in not holding a new sentencing hearing.
This Court's previous opinion stated, It is obvious that the only problem this Court found with the case was the incompleteness of the trial court's sentencing order. The remand for more particularity in the findings regarding mitigation was for the stated purpose of facilitating appellate review.
We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals that our prior order was somewhat ambiguous and that the trial court has substantially complied with the objective of the order on remand. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woolf v. State, CR–10–1082.
...pertinent part, remanded on other part, 500 So.2d 1179 (Ala.1985), aff'd on return to remand, 500 So.2d 1188 (Ala.Cr.App.), aff'd 500 So.2d 1064 (Ala.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1033, 107 S.Ct. 1965, 95 L.Ed.2d 537 (1987)." " ' Haney v. State, 603 So.2d 368, 389 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), aff'd......
-
Hodges v. State
...1984), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 500 So.2d 1179 (Ala.1985), aff'd on return to remand, 500 So.2d 1188 (Ala.Crim.App.), aff'd, 500 So.2d 1064 (Ala.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1033, 107 S.Ct. 1965, 95 L.Ed.2d 537 (1987). In fact, two-thirds of Alabama's death sentences have been imposed......
-
Townes v. State
...part, remanded on other grounds, 500 So.2d 1179 (Ala.1985), aff'd on return to remand, 500 So.2d 1188 (Ala.Crim.App.), aff'd, 500 So.2d 1064 (Ala.1986) ))." Riley, 166 So.3d at 727–28. See also White v. State, 179 So.3d 170 (Ala.Crim.App.2013). In the instant case, the circuit court found T......
-
Burgess v. State
...1984), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 500 So.2d 1179 (Ala.1985), aff'd on return to remand, 500 So.2d 1188 (Ala.Cr.App.), aff'd, 500 So.2d 1064 (Ala.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1033, 107 S.Ct. 1965, 95 L.Ed.2d 537 After carefully reviewing the record of the guilt phase and the sentencing p......