Ex parte Ronnie Lynn Kirksey.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Rel: 06/23/2017 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 2290649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2016-2017 ____________________ 1160522 ____________________ Ex parte Ronnie Lynn Kirksey PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Ronnie Lynn Kirksey v. State of Alabama) (Etowah Circuit Court, CC-07-1130; Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-09-1091) MAIN, Justice. WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION. Stuart, C.J., and Bolin, Parker, Shaw, Wise, Bryan, and Sellers, JJ., concur. Murdock, J., dissents. 1160522 MURDOCK, Justice (dissenting). I would grant certiorari review in this capital case. Ronnie Lynn Kirksey, the petitioner, seeks review by this Court of a decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals upholding his sentence of death. The decision by the Court of Criminal Appeals follows certiorari review by the United States Supreme Court of the Court of Criminal Appeals' earlier decision upholding the petitioner's capital conviction and sentence of death and a remand by that Court to the Court of Criminal Appeals for further consideration of the sentence in light of the Supreme Court's holding in ___, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016). Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. See Kirksey v. State, 191 So. 3d 810 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015), vacated, 578 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2409 (2016). I am concerned that the issue whether the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances in a capital case, as required for the imposition of the death penalty under Alabama law, sufficiently partakes of the nature of a factual inquiry articulated in Hurst. so as to trigger the principles I also believe this Court should further consider the petitioner's argument that the jury's 2 1160522 verdict was constitutionally insufficient to support a death sentence because the jury was instructed that its verdict would merely be a recommendation. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
