State v. Larry Henderson). Rashad Stoves. (In Re State (In re Henderson.)
Decision Date | 13 September 2013 |
Docket Number | 1120140 and 1120202. |
Citation | 144 So.3d 1262 |
Parties | Ex parte Larry HENDERSON. (In re State of Alabama v. Larry Henderson). Ex parte Rashad Stoves. (In re State of Alabama v. Rashad Stoves). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Donald L. Colee, Jr., Birmingham; and Raymond Johnson of The Johnson Law Firm, LLC, Birmingham, for petitioner Larry Henderson.
R. Wendell Sheffield of Sheffield & Lentine, P.C., Birmingham, for petitioner Rashad Stoves.
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and John M. Porter, asst. atty. gen., in case no. 1120140; Luther Strange, atty. gen., and John Neiman, Jr., deputy atty. gen., and Kristi O. Wilkerson, asst. atty. gen., in case no. 1120202, for respondent.
These petitions for a writ of mandamus seek the dismissal of capital-murder indictments against two juvenile offenders based on Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005), and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012). In Roper, the United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment bars capital punishment for juveniles, and, in Miller, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for juveniles. Both juveniles argue that Alabama's capital-murder statute is unconstitutional as applied to them because the mandatory sentencing structure provides that all defendants charged with a capital offense, including juveniles, must receive either a sentence of death or a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole.
On October 22, 2010, Larry Henderson, age 16 at the time of the offense, was indicted in Jefferson County for murder made capital because it was committed during the course of robbery in the first degree, see § 13A–5–40(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975. On July 3, 2012, Henderson filed a motion to dismiss the capital-murder charge, arguing that the State may proceed with other charges against him but that the capital-murder charge must be dismissed because the mandatory punishment of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a juvenile is unconstitutional. On July 24, 2012, the trial court denied Henderson's motion to dismiss. On July 26, 2012, Henderson filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Criminal Appeals. That same day, Henderson also filed a motion to stay the trial proceedings, which the Court of Criminal Appeals granted. On October 16, 2012, the Court of Criminal Appeals entered an order denying Henderson's petition. That court stated:
“The State asserts that the United States Supreme Court in Miller did not vacate Miller's conviction, but only his mandatory sentence, and that the opinion affects only Henderson's sentence and not his conviction.
On July 13, 2012, Rashad Stoves, age 17 at the time of the offense, was indicted in Jefferson County for murder made capital because it was committed during the course of a robbery in the first degree, see § 13A–5–40(a)(2), and murder made capital because two or more persons were killed, see § 13A–5–40(a)(10), Ala.Code 1975. On September 5, 2012, Stoves filed a motion to dismiss the capital-murder charges, arguing that the State cannot prosecute a juvenile for a capital offense where the only two possible punishments are death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On September 13, 2012, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss, stating:
On September 28, 2012, Stoves filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Court of Criminal Appeals. On November 8, 2012, the Court of Criminal Appeals entered an order denying Stoves's petition, which order was substantially the same as the order entered on Henderson's petition.
Both Henderson and Stoves timely filed petitions for writs of mandamus with this Court. We have consolidated these petitions for the purpose of writing one opinion, and we hereinafter refer to Henderson and Stoves collectively as “the juveniles.”
“ ‘A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and it “will be issued only when there is: 1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; 2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; 3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and 4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.” ’ ”
Ex parte Monsanto Co., 862 So.2d 595, 604 (Ala.2003) (quoting Ex parte Butts, 775 So.2d 173, 176 (Ala.2000), quoting in turn Ex parte United Serv. Stations, Inc., 628 So.2d 501, 503 (Ala.1993)).
Rule 21(e)(1), Ala. R.App. P., provides, in pertinent part:
The juveniles seek a dismissal of their indictments. Rule 13.5(c), Ala. R.Crim. P., provides:
“(c) Effect of Defect in Charge.
“(1) A motion to dismiss the indictment may be based upon objections to the venire, the lack of legal qualifications of an individual grand juror, the legal insufficiency of the indictment, or the failure of the indictment to charge an offense.
“(2) No charge shall be deemed invalid, nor shall the trial, judgment, or other proceedings thereon be stayed, arrested, or in any manner affected, for any defect or imperfection in the charge which does not tend to prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant upon the merits.”
Rule 13.5(c) allows for a pretrial dismissal of an indictment based upon “the legal insufficiency of the indictment, or the failure of the indictment to charge an offense.” The juveniles' arguments that the capital-murder indictments were unconstitutional as applied to them in that the indictments failed to charge them with a valid crime under the United States Constitution is the proper subject of a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking review of the orders denying their motions to dismiss the indictments.
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The United States Supreme Court has explained:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Gutierrez
...the factors discussed above before imposing life without parole on a juvenile homicide offender. (See State v. Henderson (Ala.2013) 144 So.3d 1262, 1283–84, 2013 WL 4873077, at p. *21 ; State v. Null (Iowa 2013) 836 N.W.2d 41, 74 ; Parker v. State (Miss.2013) 119 So.3d 987, 995–996, 998 & f......
-
Williams v. State, CR–12–1862.
...sentencing statutes that "must be applied retroactivity." (Williams's brief, p. 19.) The Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Henderson 144 So.3d 1262 (Ala.2013), however, recognized that "[i]t is not the actual sentence of life imprisonment without parole that was barred in Miller "; instead,......
-
Commonwealth v. Batts
...412 (2016). Others have simply required courts to consider the Miller factors at a sentencing hearing. See, e.g., Ex parte Henderson, 144 So.3d 1262, 1283–84 (Ala. 2013). However, as was the circumstance for this Court in Batts I, these state courts have not yet faced the question of whethe......
-
People v. Gutierrez, s. S206365
...the factors discussed above before imposing life without parole on a juvenile homicide offender. (See State v. Henderson (Ala.2013) 144 So.3d 1262, 1283–84, 2013 WL 4873077, at p. *21 ; State v. Null (Iowa 2013) 836 N.W.2d 41, 74 ; Parker v. State (Miss.2013) 119 So.3d 987, 995–996, 998 & f......
-
Youth Always Matters: Replacing Eighth Amendment Pseudoscience with an Age-Based Ban on Juvenile Life Without Parole.
...order following remand for resentencing findings of fact and conclusions of law). (270.) Id. at 48. (271.) See Ex parte Henderson, 144 So. 3d 1262, 1284 (Ala. 2013); see also ALA. CODE [section] 13A-5-53(e) (1975) (defining capital offenses and requiring that sentencers consider aggravating......
-
THE TRILOGY AND BEYOND.
...diminished culpability, emotional maturity, past exposure to violence, ability to deal with the police and others. Ex Parte Henderson, 144 So.3d 1262, 1284 (Ala. (109.) Mike Ward, Report on Adolescent Brains Hits Nerve in Criminal Justice Debate, AUSTIN AM. STATESMAN (Aug. 6, 2012), http://......