Ex parte Waldrop
Decision Date | 22 November 2002 |
Citation | 859 So.2d 1181 |
Parties | Ex parte Bobby Wayne WALDROP. (In re Bobby Wayne Waldrop v. State of Alabama.) |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Richard K. Keith of Keith & Hamm, P.C., Montgomery; and Kathleen B. Morris of Morris & McDermott, L.L.C., Montgomery, for petitioner.
William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen., and James R. Houts, Beth Jackson Hughes, and Tracy Daniel, asst. attys. gen., for respondent.
Bryan A. Stevenson and Randall S. Susskind, Montgomery, for amicus curiae Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama, on behalf of the petitioner.
Vader A. (Al) Pennington, Mobile, for amicus curiae Alabama Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, in support of the petitioner. Thomas W. Sorrells, Montgomery, for amicus curiae Alabama District Attorneys Association, in support of the respondent.
The petitioner, Bobby Wayne Waldrop, was convicted of three counts of capital murder: two counts of murder made capital because it was committed during a robbery in the first degree, see Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-40(a)(2), and one count of murder made capital because two or more persons were murdered by one act or pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, see Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-40(a)(10). On April 25, 2002, this Court granted Waldrop's petition for certiorari review to determine whether the trial court's sentencing order stated sufficient reasons for overriding the jury's recommendation of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, as required by this Court's instructions in Ex parte Taylor, 808 So.2d 1215 (Ala.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1086, 122 S.Ct. 824, 151 L.Ed.2d 705 (2002). On June 24, 2002, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). This Court then ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing the impact of Ring and invited the Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama, the Alabama District Attorneys Association, and the Alabama Criminal Defense Lawyers Association to file amicus curiae briefs on the same issues.1 Oral arguments on the case were heard on September 10, 2002. We affirm.
The evidence at trial revealed the following. Waldrop and his wife, Clara, resided with Waldrop's grandparents, Sherrell Prestridge and Irene Prestridge. Sherrell had heart and hip problems and had difficulty walking. Irene was bedridden, blind, and suffered from diabetes. Because of the Prestridges' numerous medical problems, the living room of their house had been converted into a bedroom with two hospital beds. Testimony at trial indicated that Waldrop knew that his grandmother and grandfather received Social Security checks before the third day of each month.
Between 10:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. on April 5, 1998, Waldrop and Clara left the Prestridges' house and checked into a hotel in Anniston. That same day, Waldrop and Clara pawned Sherrell's lawn mower and Waldrop smoked an undetermined amount of crack cocaine. Later that evening, Waldrop and Clara returned to the Prestridges' house. Testimony at trial indicated that Waldrop was not high on crack cocaine when he and Clara returned to the house. While Waldrop was in his grandparents' bedroom, Waldrop and Sherrell began arguing over money. In a statement Waldrop made to the police, which was introduced at trial, Waldrop stated:
(C. 183.) Sherrell suffered 43 stab wounds to his head, neck, back, and chest; he died as a result of his injuries.
Waldrop's grandmother, Irene, had been lying in her bed in the same room while Waldrop attacked his grandfather. She heard Waldrop kill her husband, and she was screaming throughout the incident. After he killed Sherrell, Waldrop instructed Clara to kill Irene. Clara cut and stabbed Irene twice. Waldrop then took the knife from Clara. Testimony at trial indicated that Irene told Waldrop that she loved him before he placed a pillow over her face and stabbed her in the chest, throat, and shoulders until she died. Irene suffered a total of 38 stab and cut wounds. Waldrop and Clara took Sherrell's wallet, and they left to buy drugs, ultimately driving to Georgia where they were apprehended.
Waldrop was charged with two counts of murder made capital because the murder was committed during a robbery in the first degree and one count of murder made capital because two or more persons were murdered by one act or pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct. At trial, the jury found Waldrop guilty of all three counts. Subsequently, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-46. After the sentencing hearing, the jury, by a vote of 10-2, recommended that Waldrop be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Circuit Judge Dale Segrest overrode the jury's recommendation and sentenced Waldrop to death.
Waldrop appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals, which, on June 30, 2000, remanded the case for the trial court to reweigh the mitigating circumstances and the aggravating circumstances and to issue a new sentencing order. Waldrop v. State, 859 So.2d 1138 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). The trial court complied and issued a revised sentencing order, again sentencing Waldrop to death.
On return to remand, the Court of Criminal Appeals noted:
Waldrop v. State, 859 So.2d 1138, 1174 ( ). On return to remand, the Court of Criminal Appeals unanimously affirmed Waldrop's conviction and sentence.
Waldrop claims that the United States Supreme Court's opinions in Ring v. Arizona, supra,
and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), mandate that any factual determination required for imposition of the death penalty must be made by the jury, not by the trial court.
In Apprendi, the Supreme Court held that "[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348. In Ring v. Arizona, the Supreme Court tested this principle against Arizona's death-penalty scheme. The defendant in that case, Ring, was convicted of felony murder for a murder that occurred in the course of a robbery:
Ring, 536 U.S. at 592-93, 122 S.Ct. at 2434-35 ( ). The trial court had held a sentencing hearing, in which it heard evidence not previously heard by the jury, including the testimony of one of Ring's accomplices. After the hearing, the trial court rendered a special verdict in which it found that Ring had shot and killed the victim. It also determined that two aggravating circumstances existed: (1) that "Ring committed the offense in expectation of receiving something of `pecuniary value,'" and (2) that "the offense was committed `in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner.'" 536 U.S. at 594, 122 S.Ct. at 2435. After determining that the mitigating circumstance in the case— Ring's "minimal" criminal record—did not call for leniency, the trial court sentenced Ring to death. 536 U.S. at 595, 122 S.Ct. at 2435.
On appeal, Ring claimed that, under Apprendi, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Capote v. State
...Supreme Court has repeatedly construed Alabama's capital-sentencing scheme as constitutional under Ring. See, e.g., Ex parte Waldrop, 859 So. 2d 1181 (Ala. 2002) ; Ex parte Hodges, 856 So. 2d 936 (Ala. 2003) ; Ex parte Martin, 931 So. 2d 759 (Ala. 2004) ; Ex parte McNabb, 887 So. 2d 998 (Al......
-
Petersen v. State
...v. State, 628 So. 2d 954, 965 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992).’ " Ex parte Bohannon, 222 So. 3d 525, 529 (Ala. 2016) (quoting Ex parte Waldrop, 859 So. 2d 1181, 1187-88 (Ala. 2002) ). Here, Petersen was convicted of capital offenses that had corresponding aggravating circumstances. Those offenses we......
-
Lindsay v. State
...Alabama's capital sentencing scheme does not violate Ring or Hurst. See Ex parte Bohannon, 222 So.3d 525 (Ala. 2016) ; Ex parte Waldrop, 859 So.2d 1181 (Ala. 2002).Moreover, in this case, the circuit court gave verdict forms to the penalty-phase jury concerning the aggravating circumstances......
-
Brown v. State
...2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). Specifically, Brown asks this court to overturn the Alabama Supreme Court's decision in Ex parte Waldrop, 859 So.2d 1181 (Ala.2002), and also argues that he should not be executed based on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Atkins v. Virginia, As to ......