Mitchell v. Alabama
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Defendant Brandon Mitchell was convicted on four counts of capital murder for killing three people during the course of a robbery at a hotel. The jury recommended that Defendant be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parol on each conviction. After considering Defendant's presentence report and holding a sentencing hearing, the trial court overrode the jury's recommendation and sentenced Defendant to death. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Defendant petitioned the Supreme COurt for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the appellate court, asserting seventeen separate grounds for review. The Court granted the writ in May 2011, and issued the writ to examine the sole question on whether the trial court complied with Ala. Code 1975 section 13A-5-47(d) and (e). Upon receiving the record, the Court determined the writ was "improvidently issued" and quashed it. The Court found that the trial court fully complied with Alabama Code.
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Download PDF
REL 11/18/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 1100363 Ex p a r t e Brandon Deon Mitchell PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In r e : Brandon Deon Mitchell v. S t a t e o f Alabama) ( J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t , CC-06-1059; C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s , CR-06-0827) PER CURIAM. Brandon capital Deon Mitchell was c o n v i c t e d murder f o r t h e i n t e n t i o n a l killing of four counts of of Kim Olney, John 1100363 Aylesworth, and at § 13A-5-40(a)(2), a hotel, two § Dorothy o r more p e r s o n s without sentencing hearing, and Mitchell's of 0827, A u g u s t 27, to then review asserting Ala. R. 2011, the trial sentenced 2010] Court i n Ex killing life in prison conviction. After and overrode to P. (e) conduct, convicted report court of that to each Mitchell So. this decision court and for and jury sentenced Mitchell Appeals. of This holding the as had jury's [Ms. CR-06- ( A l a . C r i m . App. Court State, the 2010). for a writ Court of of granted the certiorari Criminal Appeals, to Rule petition on May 39, 25, to examine the s o l e q u e s t i o n whether complied those a death. v. 3d the Court i s s u e d the w r i t 47(d) trial robbery separate grounds f o r review pursuant App. and The presentence the petitioned the 17 be of a c o n v i c t i o n s and s e n t e n c e s were a f f i r m e d by Criminal Mitchell 1975. he a course a c t or course o f p a r o l e on receiving recommendation Court that the p o s s i b i l i t y and t o one A l a . Code recommended ordering d u r i n g the A l a . Code 1975, pursuant 13A-5-40(a)(10), Mitchell Smith Code p a r t e T a y l o r , 808 w i t h A l a . Code sections So. 2 2d were 1215 1975, § 13A-5- c o n s t r u e d by ( A l a . 2001). this Upon 1100363 receiving the record, improvidently issued, Subsection a capital the (d) we and of or we now quash nonexistence of" mitigating circumstances c o n t r i b u t i n g to the the sentence. trial contained court s h a l l in construing j u d g e was its (e) consider to trial the recommendation the 2d was court the and aggravating determination that, unless sentencing together, Court held reasons jury Taylor, the trial for giving The opinion addressing consider overriding death, of the Court of M i t c h e l l ' s argument t h a t the certain the trail mitigating jury's advisory v e r d i c t and relevant court's written findings. in court failed to in sentencing to and ___ 3d a t ___ . 3 So. circumstances caselaw So. 808 Appeals, Criminal nonstatutory discussed gave i t . " the 1219. at c o n s i d e r a t i o n he in that an phase, recommendation of the The in concerning statutory provides "state specific jury's trial court's verdict." subsections required the and been waived i n the advisory those writ writ. the circumstances Subsection a d v i s o r y j u r y v e r d i c t has "the the the specific written findings nonstatutory of that § 13A-5-47 r e q u i r e s case to " e n t e r existence determined quoted from The the him trial decision of 1100363 the Court of introductory identified received sections the evidence i n broad considered 3d a t ___ . and Mitchell's or that whether specific the Court court's This the the t r i a l "the c i r c u i t court court had appeared read to i t s circumstances court Court trial findings court as circumstances the or into ___ opinion suggest specific and the record the necessary certiorari had, to then i n open c o u r t b u t h a d f a i l e d t o h a d n o t made granted had clearly to i t . " of Criminal Appeals' court which Appeals presented Court only order, of Criminal to this trial quoted with regard to the m i t i g a t i n g circumstances the t r i a l circumstances review specific to determine had not, properly aggravating and and whether i t had e n t e r e d those made mitigating findings into by t h e Court o f C r i m i n a l Appeals upon record. The r e c o r d p r o v i d e d our that i t s f i n d i n g s as t o t h o s e findings. the The C o u r t language Both the aggravating that trial and t h e r e p o r t petition determinations enter the however, a l l m i t i g a t i n g circumstances So. either Appeals, of and reviewed. concluded the Criminal issuance entered of the writ shows that the t r i a l w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e 4 court or properly nonexistence 1100363 of the statutory mitigating circumstances and t h e s t a t u t o r y a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; t h a t i t e n t e r e d w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s as to the existence nonstatutory defense; life why or mitigating and t h a t imprisonment fully due the weight circumstances presented of the by the recommendation of w i t h t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f p a r o l e and s p e c i f i e d that recommendation. The t r i a l court w i t h A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , § 1 3 A - 5 - 4 7 ( d ) a n d ( e ) , as c o n s t r u e d by t h i s improvidently and i tdiscussed the jury's i t d i d not follow complied nonexistence Court i n T a y l o r . The p e t i t i o n g r a n t e d and t h e w r i t was t h e r e f o r e i s s u e d on May 2 5 , 2 0 1 1 , i s t o be q u a s h e d . WRIT QUASHED. Malone, C . J . , and Woodall, Stuart, Bolin, Parker, and Murdock, J J . , concur. Shaw, M a i n , and Wise, J J . , recuse themselves.* *Justice Shaw, J u s t i c e Main, and J u s t i c e members o f t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s when considered t h i s case. 5 Wise were that court
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.
