EX PARTE MACK III
Decision Date | 12 March 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 1971587.,1971587. |
Citation | 736 So.2d 681 |
Parties | Ex parte Albert MACK III. (Re Albert Mack III v. State). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Scott Donaldson, Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Michael B. Billingsley, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
A jury convicted Albert Mack III of the offense of murder during the course of a robbery, made capital by § 13A-5-40(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975. The jury, by a vote of ten to two, recommended that Mack be punished by death. The trial court accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced Mack to death. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Mack's conviction and sentence. Mack v. State, 736 So.2d 664 (Ala.Crim.App.1998). This Court granted certiorari review and heard the matter on oral argument. We affirm.
The facts of the case, as stated by the Court of Criminal Appeals, are as follows:
736 So.2d at 666. The Court of Criminal Appeals wrote:
Mack raises in his certiorari petition the same seven issues he raised before the Court of Criminal Appeals. The opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals provides a thorough treatment of the facts of this case and of each issue raised by Mack in his petition.
Because this case involves the death penalty, this Court is obliged under Rule 45A, Ala. R.App. P., to review the record for any "error that has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right" of the defendant:
Ex parte Jackson, 672 So.2d 810, 811 (Ala. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1247, 116 S.Ct. 2505, 135 L.Ed.2d 195 (1996). We have reviewed the proceedings for plain error and have found none.
As required by Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-53, we have "review[ed] the propriety of the death sentence" in this case. This review convinces us 1) that the sentence imposed upon Mack was not "imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor"; 2) that "an independent weighing of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances at the appellate level indicates that death was the proper sentence"; and 3) that Mack's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Loggins v. State
...State, 627 So.2d 1034, 1045 (1992), aff'd, 627 So.2d 1054 (Ala.1993))." Mack v. State, 736 So.2d 664, 673 (Ala.Cr.App. 1998), aff'd, 736 So.2d 681 (Ala.1999). The photographs depicted the gravity of the acts committed against Deblieux. In light of the severity and number of Deblieux's injur......
-
Williams v. State
...we will not consider the cumulative effect to be any greater error. See Mack v. State, 736 So.2d 664 (Ala. Crim.App.1998), aff'd, 736 So.2d 681 (Ala.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1006, 120 S.Ct. 502, 145 L.Ed.2d 388 (1999); Crymes v. State, 630 So.2d 120 (Ala.Crim.App.), aff'd, 630 So.2d 125 (A......
-
Ex parte Mack
...to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. See Mack v. State, 736 So.2d 664 (Ala.Crim.App.1998), aff'd, 736 So.2d 681 (Ala.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1006, 120 S.Ct. 502, 145 L.Ed.2d 388 (1999). This Court issued a certificate of judgment in June In August 2000, Ma......
-
Burgess, Jr. v. State
...is so obvious that the failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings. Ex parte Mack, 736 So. 2d 681 (Ala. 1999). See Rule 39(k), Ala. R. App. P. We find no error, "plain" or otherwise, that requires us to reverse Burgess's However, for the......