James v. State
Decision Date | 18 December 1979 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 128 |
Citation | 380 So.2d 995 |
Parties | Stanley Lee JAMES v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Robert R. Bryan and Roger C. Appell of Bryan, Wiggins, Quinn & Appell, Birmingham, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., Virginia A. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was indicted under § 13-11-2(a)(2), "Robbery or attempts thereof when the victim is intentionally killed by the defendant," of the Death Penalty and Life Imprisonment Without Parole Act (Acts 1975, No. 213), Code of Alabama 1975, § 13-11-1, et seq. In accordance with a plea bargaining understanding, in which he personally and his employed attorney expressly concurred, he pleaded guilty to the charge, a jury was selected, evidence was submitted to the jury clearly establishing his guilt, and the jury found him guilty and fixed his punishment at death. Thereupon, in accordance with the understanding of the parties and with § 4 of the Act (Code 13-11-4), the court refused "to accept the death penalty as fixed by the jury and sentence(d) the defendant to life imprisonment without parole."
Appellant does not question the validity or sufficiency of the proceedings other than as they may be affected by two points, which we now consider.
The first is considered in appellant's brief under the caption:
" § 13-11-2 and 13-11-4, Code of Alabama (1975) VIOLATES THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION SINCE THE JURY IS NOT PERMITTED TO CONSIDER VARIOUS RELEVANT DEGREES OF HOMICIDE, AND ABSOLUTELY FORBIDS A TRIAL BY JURY UNDER THE ISSUE OF PUNISHMENT IN THE EVENT OF A GUILTY FINDING."
Both aspects of appellant's first contention have been solidly addressed and soundly answered by the Supreme Court of Alabama and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. The Eighth Amendment ( ) phase and the Fourteenth Amendment (due process requirement) part were firmly and clearly rejected in Jacobs v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 361 So.2d 607 (1977), aff'd Ala., 361 So.2d 640 (1978), and afterwards were likewise rejected in Evans & Ritter v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 361 So.2d 654 (1977), aff'd as to Evans, Ala., 361 So.2d 666 (1978), as well as in Evans v. Britton, 472 F.Supp. 707 (S.D.Ala.1979).
Appellant also urges, under the caption in his brief quoted above, that the Death Penalty and Life Imprisonment Without Parole statute offends the Sixth Amendment ( ) to the Constitution of the United States. This contention has also been exhaustively treated and firmly rejected. Beck v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 365 So.2d 985, aff'd Ala., 365 So.2d 1006 (1978).
"In view of the foregoing authority, it is our judgment that the appellant's right to a trial by jury has not been abridged under Alabama capital sentencing procedure." 365 So.2d at 1002.
The only other claim for a reversal arises out of action by a judge of the trial court, not the judge who rendered the judgment of conviction and sentence from which the instant appeal was taken, who, after a hearing on May 30, 1979, denied defendant's motion for the entry of a guilty plea on a pending indictment of defendant for murder in the first degree of the same victim alleged in the indictment subsequently returned, June 8, 1979. The action of the court and its reason therefor are clearly set forth in the following order:
The record shows that on July 9, 1979, at 11:25 A.M., defendant, accompanied by his employed attorney, appeared before Judge Charles R. Crowder, with a jury available, and made known to the court that, subject to defendant's reservation of his right to challenge the constitutionality of the Death Penalty and Life Imprisonment Without Parole Act, defendant desired to plead guilty to the indictment of June 8, 1979, and that there was an understanding between the parties that proof would be made before a jury that defendant was guilty, a verdict would be rendered accordingly and fixing defendant's punishment at death, and thereafter the trial court would reduce the punishment fixed by the jury and sentence defendant to life imprisonment without parole.
Appellant's second claim for a reversal is argued under the caption in his brief:
"THE REFUSAL OF THE DUTY JUDGE TO ACCEPT THE APPELLANT'S PLEA OF GUILTY WAS NOT WITHIN HIS DISCRETION AND...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pelmer v. State
...sound discretion in such an instance. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971); James v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 380 So.2d 995 (1979), cert. denied, Ala., 380 So.2d 999 (1980). We thus decline the opportunity to require a trial court to supply reasons affirmativ......
-
Swann v. City of Huntsville, 8 Div. 902
...have a guilty plea accepted." Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262, 92 S.Ct. 495, 498, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971). See James v. State, 380 So.2d 995, 998 (Ala.Cr.App.1979), cert. denied, 380 So.2d 999 (Ala.1980); Pelmer v. State, 389 So.2d 584, 590 (Ala.Cr.App.1980). From the foregoing exch......
-
Carpenter v. State, 6 Div. 293
...but thereafter, pursuant to §§ 13-11-3 and 13-11-4, the court sentenced him to imprisonment for life without parole. See James v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 380 So.2d 995, cert. denied, Ala., 380 So.2d 999 In another of the other two cases, James Earl Carpenter, an older brother of the appellant h......