Frazier v. State
Citation | 758 So.2d 577 |
Parties | Demetrius Terrence FRAZIER v. STATE. |
Decision Date | 15 January 1999 |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Virginia A. Vinson, Birmingham, for appellant.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen.; and Paul H. Blackwell, Jr., and Sandra J. Stewart, asst. attys. gen., for appellee.
The Jefferson County grand jury returned an indictment charging the appellant, Demetrius Terrence Frazier, with three counts of capital murder. Count I charged the appellant with the offense of murder made capital because it occurred during a robbery. See § 13A-5-40(a)(2), Code of Alabama 1975. Count II charged the appellant with the offense of murder made capital because it occurred during a burglary. See § 13A-5-40(a)(4), Code of Alabama 1975. Count III charged the appellant with the offense of murder made capital because it occurred during a rape. See § 13A-5-40(a)(3), Code of Alabama 1975. The jury found the appellant guilty of capital murder as charged in Count I of the indictment, and guilty of intentional murder, as a lesser offense to the capital murder charge in Count III of the indictment. The trial court declared a mistrial on Count II of the indictment because the jury was unable to reach a verdict on that count.
As to the appellant's capital murder conviction under Count I, the jury, by a vote of 10 to 2, recommended that the appellant be sentenced to death. The trial court followed the jury's recommendation and sentenced the appellant to death by electrocution. With regard to the appellant's conviction for the lesser offense of murder under Count III of the indictment, the trial court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment.
The trial court, in its written sentencing order imposing the death penalty, set out the following facts:
We note that many of the appellant's assertions were not preserved for appellate review; nevertheless, because this case involves the death penalty, we must review the appellant's assertions for plain error.
"In all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant."
Bush v. State, 695 So.2d 70, 87 (Ala.Cr. App.1995), aff'd, 695 So.2d 138 (Ala.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 969, 118 S.Ct. 418, 139 L.Ed.2d 320 (1997). See also Davis v. State, 718 So.2d 1148, 1154 n. 3 (Ala.Cr. App.1995), aff'd, 718 So.2d 1166 (Ala.1998).
Although the issue was not raised by the appellant at trial or on appeal, this Court is required, under the plain error doctrine, to address whether the trial court had jurisdiction to adjudge the appellant both guilty of capital murder for the robbery-murder of Pauline Brown as charged in Count I of the indictment, and guilty of the intentional murder of Pauline Brown, as a lesser offense to the capital murder charged in Count III of the indictment. Based upon this Court's rationale in Borden v. State, 711 So.2d 498, 503-04 (Ala.Cr. App.1997), aff'd, 711 So.2d 506 (Ala.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 845, 119 S.Ct. 113, 142 L.Ed.2d 91 (1998), and in Mangione v. State, 740 So.2d 444 (Ala.Cr.App.1998), we hold that the trial court could not adjudge the appellant guilty of both capital murder under Count I of the indictment and the lesser-included offense of intentional murder under Count III.
We quote extensively from our opinion in Mangione:
740 So.2d at 449. (Some emphasis original; some emphasis added.)
740 So.2d at 449. Accordingly, this cause is remanded for the trial court to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Petersen v. State
...instructions given by the trial court.’ " Mitchell v. State, 84 So. 3d 968, 983 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010) (quoting Frazier v. State, 758 So. 2d 577, 604 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999) ). Thus, Petersen's claim is without merit and he is not entitled to relief.XXI.35 Petersen argues that his death sent......
-
Osgood v. State
...the instructions given by the trial court.’ " Mitchell v. State, 84 So.3d 968, 983 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010), quoting Frazier v. State, 758 So.2d 577, 604 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). The trial court's instruction that the nonstatutory mitigating circumstances were, "as presented in this case, ... ......
-
Loggins v. State
...one and one-half hours before recommending, by a vote of 10-2, that Loggins be sentenced to death. Recently, in Frazier v. State, 758 So.2d 577 (Ala.Cr.App.1999), and James v. State, 723 So.2d 776 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 723 So.2d 786 (Ala.1998), this court found no plain error in the ......
-
Maples v. State
...155, 160 (Ala.Cr.App.1988)). Accordingly, the prosecutor's statements do not rise to the level of plain error. See Frazier v. State, 758 So.2d 577 (Ala.Cr.App.1999); Dobyne, supra; Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36, 55 (Ala.Cr.App.), opinion extended on return to remand, 666 So.2d 71 (Ala.Cr.Ap......