Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 13A-5-47 (2026)
Determination of Sentence by Court; Presentation of Arguments on Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances; Court to Enter Written Findings.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
(a) After the sentence hearing has been conducted, and after the jury has returned a verdict, or after such a verdict has been waived as provided in Section 13A-5-46(a) or Section 13A-5-46(g), the trial court shall impose sentence. Where the jury has returned a verdict of death, the court shall sentence the defendant to death. Where a sentence of death is not returned by the jury, the court shall sentence the defendant to life imprisonment without parole. This code section shall not affect a trial court’s power to sentence in accordance with a guilty plea.
(b) Where the sentencing jury is waived pursuant to Section 13A-5-44 and before imposing sentence the trial court shall permit the parties to present arguments concerning the existence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the proper sentence to be imposed in the case. The order of the arguments shall be the same as at the trial of a case. The trial court, based upon evidence presented at trial and the evidence presented during the sentence hearing and any evidence submitted in connection with it, shall enter specific written findings concerning the existence or nonexistence of each aggravating circumstance enumerated in Section 13A-5-49, each mitigating circumstance enumerated in Section 13A-5-51, and any additional mitigating circumstances offered pursuant to Section 13A-5-52. The trial court shall also enter written findings of facts summarizing the crime and the defendant’s participation in it. In deciding upon the sentence, the trial court shall determine whether the aggravating circumstances it finds to exist outweigh the mitigating circumstances it finds to exist.
(Acts 1981, No. 81-178, p. 203, §9; Act 2017-131, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 266
cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Hodges v. State, 856 So. 2d 875 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001).
Hodges v. State, 856 So. 2d 875 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001). “The sentencing order reads as follows: "Pursuant to the requirements of Code of Alabama Section 13A-5-47, the Court makes the following specific findings of fact relating to the aggravating circumstances set forth in Section 13A-5-49: "(1) The capital offense was not committed…”
Ferguson v. State, 13 So. 3d 418 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008). “"The Court has also considered the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report as set out in Section 13A-5-47, Code of Alabama, as amended, in determining a sentence in this case.”
Woodward v. State, 123 So. 3d 989 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). “Woodward next argues that the trial court’s admission and consideration of exhibits that were not introduced at the sentencing hearing before the jury and that were not the subject of a factual dispute in the presentence-investigation report (“PSI”) violated § 13A-5-47, Ala.…”
Stanley v. State, 143 So. 3d 230 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). “See §§ 13A-5-47(d) and 13A-5-49, Ala. Code 1975.”
Haney v. State, 603 So. 2d 368 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). “[1] Thereafter, the trial court held another sentencing hearing, in accordance with §§ 13A-5-47 through -52, and, after weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and considering the jury's recommendation, sentenced Haney to death.”
Doster v. State, 72 So. 3d 50 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010). “The circuit court complied with the requirements of § 13A-5-47, Ala.Code 1975, by correctly considering the uncontested portions of the presen-tence report.”
Ex Parte Waldrop, 859 So. 2d 1181 (Ala. 2002). “§ 13A-5-47 (a), Ala.Code 1975. Likewise, considering the recommendation of the jury is the duty and the prerogative of the trial court.”
Turner v. State, 924 So. 2d 737 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “) The State concedes that the trial court failed to comply with § 13A-5-47(d), Ala.Code 1975, and that a remand is necessary in order for the trial court to comply with the law.”
Davis v. State, 718 So. 2d 1148 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997). “[1] Thereafter, the trial court held another sentencing hearing in accordance with § 13A-5-47, and, after weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and considering the jury's recommendation and considering the presentence report, it sentenced the appellant to death.”
Woods v. State, 13 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007). “*42 Thereafter, the trial court held another hearing, in accordance with § 13A-5-47, Ala.Code 1975, to aid it in determining whether it would sentence Woods to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or to death as recommended by the jury.”
Ziegler v. State, 886 So. 2d 127 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “Ziegler argues in Issue VII of his brief to this Court that his death sentence must be vacated because the trial court's sentencing order fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of § 13A-5-47, Ala.Code 1975, in that it fails to address each statutory aggravating and…”
Coral v. State, 628 So. 2d 954 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992). “On original submission, we remanded this case to the trial court with instructions to comply with §§ 13A-5-47 through -52, Code of Alabama 1975, by entering specific written findings concerning the existence or nonexistence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and, once…”
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-47(3) — 1 case
Spencer v. State, 201 So. 3d 573 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015).
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-47(5) — 1 case
Spencer v. State, 201 So. 3d 573 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015).
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-47(7) — 1 case
Spencer v. State, 201 So. 3d 573 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015).
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-47(9) — 1 case
Spencer v. State, 201 So. 3d 573 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015).
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-47(a) — 12 cases
Ex Parte Carroll, 852 So. 2d 821 (Ala. 2001).
Thomas J. Fortenberry v. Michael W. Haley, 297 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2002).
Shonelle Andre Jackson v. State of Alabama., 133 So. 3d 420 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009).
Hosch v. State, 155 So. 3d 1048 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013).
Demetrius Avery Jackson, Jr. v. State of Alabama., 169 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-47(b) — 84 cases
Haney v. State, 603 So. 2d 368 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). “[1] Thereafter, the trial court held another sentencing hearing, in accordance with §§ 13A-5-47 through -52, and, after weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and considering the jury's recommendation, sentenced Haney to death.”
Woodward v. State, 123 So. 3d 989 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). “Woodward next argues that the trial court’s admission and consideration of exhibits that were not introduced at the sentencing hearing before the jury and that were not the subject of a factual dispute in the presentence-investigation report (“PSI”) violated § 13A-5-47, Ala.…”
Sharifi v. State, 993 So. 2d 907 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008).
Washington v. State, 106 So. 3d 441 (Ala. 2011).
Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 1276 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996).
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-47(b)(d) — 1 case
Harris v. State, 2 So. 3d 880 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007).
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-47(c) — 19 cases
Garden v. State, 844 A.2d 311 (Del. 2004).
Calhoun v. State, 932 So. 2d 923 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).
Albarran v. State, 96 So. 3d 131 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011).
Snyder v. State, 893 So. 2d 488 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).
Adams v. State, 955 So. 2d 1037 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-47(d) — 112 cases
Hodges v. State, 856 So. 2d 875 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001). “The sentencing order reads as follows: "Pursuant to the requirements of Code of Alabama Section 13A-5-47, the Court makes the following specific findings of fact relating to the aggravating circumstances set forth in Section 13A-5-49: "(1) The capital offense was not committed…”
Turner v. State, 924 So. 2d 737 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “) The State concedes that the trial court failed to comply with § 13A-5-47(d), Ala.Code 1975, and that a remand is necessary in order for the trial court to comply with the law.”
Stanley v. State, 143 So. 3d 230 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). “See §§ 13A-5-47(d) and 13A-5-49, Ala. Code 1975.”
Davis v. State, 718 So. 2d 1148 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997). “[1] Thereafter, the trial court held another sentencing hearing in accordance with § 13A-5-47, and, after weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and considering the jury's recommendation and considering the presentence report, it sentenced the appellant to death.”
Woods v. State, 13 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007). “*42 Thereafter, the trial court held another hearing, in accordance with § 13A-5-47, Ala.Code 1975, to aid it in determining whether it would sentence Woods to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or to death as recommended by the jury.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-47(d)(l) — 1 case
Albarran v. State, 96 So. 3d 131 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011).
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-47(e) — 90 cases
Ferguson v. State, 13 So. 3d 418 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008). “"The Court has also considered the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report as set out in Section 13A-5-47, Code of Alabama, as amended, in determining a sentence in this case.”
Hodges v. State, 856 So. 2d 875 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001). “The sentencing order reads as follows: "Pursuant to the requirements of Code of Alabama Section 13A-5-47, the Court makes the following specific findings of fact relating to the aggravating circumstances set forth in Section 13A-5-49: "(1) The capital offense was not committed…”
Doster v. State, 72 So. 3d 50 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010). “The circuit court complied with the requirements of § 13A-5-47, Ala.Code 1975, by correctly considering the uncontested portions of the presen-tence report.”
Stanley v. State, 143 So. 3d 230 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). “See §§ 13A-5-47(d) and 13A-5-49, Ala. Code 1975.”
Ex Parte Waldrop, 859 So. 2d 1181 (Ala. 2002). “§ 13A-5-47 (a), Ala.Code 1975. Likewise, considering the recommendation of the jury is the duty and the prerogative of the trial court.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.