(a) In any case in which the death penalty is imposed, in addition to reviewing the case for any error involving the conviction, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, subject to review by the Alabama Supreme Court, shall also review the propriety of the death sentence. This review shall include the determination of whether any error adversely affecting the rights of the defendant was made in the sentence proceedings, whether the trial court’s findings concerning the aggravating and mitigating circumstances were supported by the evidence, and whether death was the proper sentence in the case. If the court determines that an error adversely affecting the rights of the defendant was made in the sentence proceedings or that one or more of the trial court’s findings concerning aggravating and mitigating circumstances were not supported by the evidence, it shall remand the case for new proceedings to the extent necessary to correct the error or errors. If the appellate court finds that no error adversely affecting the rights of the defendant was made in the sentence proceedings and that the trial court’s findings concerning aggravating and mitigating circumstances were supported by the evidence, it shall proceed to review the propriety of the decision that death was the proper sentence.
(b) In determining whether death was the proper sentence in the case the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, subject to review by the Alabama Supreme Court, shall determine:
(1) Whether the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor;
(2) Whether an independent weighing of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances at the appellate level indicates that death was the proper sentence; and
(3) Whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.
(c) The Court of Criminal Appeals shall explicitly address each of the three questions specified in subsection (b) of this section in every case it reviews in which a sentence of death has been imposed.
(d) After performing the review specified in this section, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, subject to review by the Alabama Supreme Court, shall be authorized to:
(1) Affirm the sentence of death;
(2) Set the sentence of death aside and remand to the trial court for correction of any errors occurring during the sentence proceedings and for imposition of the appropriate penalty after any new sentence proceedings that are necessary, provided that such errors shall not affect the determination of guilt and shall not preclude the imposition of a sentence of death where it is determined to be proper after any new sentence proceedings that are deemed necessary; or
(3) In cases in which the death penalty is deemed inappropriate under subdivision (b)(2) or (b)(3) of this section, set the sentence of death aside and remand to the trial court with directions that the defendant be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.
(Acts 1981, No. 81-178, §15.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
288
cases (
10 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case:
Ex Parte Jackson, 836 So. 2d 979 (Ala. 2002).
Ex Parte Jackson, 836 So. 2d 979 (Ala. 2002).
· cites it 10× “[5] Specifically, the Court noted that the capital-sentencing procedure "ensures that the trial judge is given adequate information and sufficient guidance in deciding whether to accept or to reject a jury's recommended sentence" and that § 13A-5-53, Ala.Code 1975, provided…”
Minor v. State, 914 So. 2d 372 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004).
· cites it 7× “We have also reviewed Minor's sentence in accordance with § 13A-5-53, Ala.Code 1975, which requires that, in addition to reviewing the case for any error involving Minor's capital-murder conviction, we also review the propriety of the death sentence.”
Blackmon v. State, 7 So. 3d 397 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006).
· cites it 8× “Last, as required by § 13A-5-53, Ala.Code 1975, we review the propriety of Blackmon's conviction and sentence of death.”
Phillips v. State, 65 So. 3d 971 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).
· cites it 13× “As required by § 13A-5-53, Ala. Code 1975, we will now address the propriety of Phillips’s death sentence.”
Ex Parte Lewis, 24 So. 3d 540 (Ala. 2009).
· cites it 9× “The second question is whether, pursuant to § 13A-5-53, Ala.Code 1975, the Court of Criminal Appeals is required to independently find the existence of any mitigating circumstances not found by the trial court and then to weigh the mitigating circumstances against the…”
Moody v. State, 888 So. 2d 532 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).
· cites it 7× “We have also reviewed Moody's sentence in accordance with § 13A-5-53, Ala.Code 1975, which requires that, in addition to reviewing the case for any error involving Moody's capital-murder convictions, we shall also review the propriety of the death sentence.”
Stallworth v. State, 868 So. 2d 1128 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).
· cites it 5× “Code 1975. The jury, by a vote of 10 to 2, recommended that Stallworth be sentenced to death.”
Tomlin v. State, 909 So. 2d 213 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002).
· cites it 9× “At that time, there was no provision similar to § 13A-5-53, Ala.Code 1975, that addresses the requirements for evaluating the propriety of a death sentence.”
Hodges v. State, 856 So. 2d 875 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001).
· cites it 6× “Code 1975, provides that we must independently weigh the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances to determine the propriety of Hodges's sentence. After an independent weighing, we are convinced, as was the trial court, that death is the appropriate sentence.”
Doster v. State, 72 So. 3d 50 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).
· cites it 6× “See § 13A-5-53, Ala.Code 1975. Standard of Review Doster has been sentenced to death.”
Sharifi v. State, 993 So. 2d 907 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008).
· cites it 6× “See § 13A-5-53, Ala. Code 1975. Standard of Review Because Sharifi has been sentenced to death, this Court must review the record for any "plain error.”
Woodward v. State, 123 So. 3d 989 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011).
· cites it 7× “Specifically, the Court noted that the capital-sentencing procedure “ensures that the trial judge is given adequate information and sufficient guidance in deciding whether to accept or to reject a jury’s recommended sentence” and that § 13A-5-53, Ala.Code 1975, provided…”
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-53(a) — 66 cases
Ex Parte Lewis, 24 So. 3d 540 (Ala. 2009).
“The second question is whether, pursuant to § 13A-5-53, Ala.Code 1975, the Court of Criminal Appeals is required to independently find the existence of any mitigating circumstances not found by the trial court and then to weigh the mitigating circumstances against the…”
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-53(a)(1) — 1 case
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-53(b) — 86 cases
Minor v. State, 914 So. 2d 372 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004).
“We have also reviewed Minor's sentence in accordance with § 13A-5-53, Ala.Code 1975, which requires that, in addition to reviewing the case for any error involving Minor's capital-murder conviction, we also review the propriety of the death sentence.”
Ex Parte Jackson, 836 So. 2d 979 (Ala. 2002).
“[5] Specifically, the Court noted that the capital-sentencing procedure "ensures that the trial judge is given adequate information and sufficient guidance in deciding whether to accept or to reject a jury's recommended sentence" and that § 13A-5-53, Ala.Code 1975, provided…”
Hodges v. State, 856 So. 2d 875 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001).
“Code 1975, provides that we must independently weigh the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances to determine the propriety of Hodges's sentence. After an independent weighing, we are convinced, as was the trial court, that death is the appropriate sentence.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-53(b)(1) — 77 cases
Stallworth v. State, 868 So. 2d 1128 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).
“Code 1975. The jury, by a vote of 10 to 2, recommended that Stallworth be sentenced to death.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-53(b)(2) — 128 cases
Stallworth v. State, 868 So. 2d 1128 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).
“Code 1975. The jury, by a vote of 10 to 2, recommended that Stallworth be sentenced to death.”
Tomlin v. State, 909 So. 2d 213 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002).
“At that time, there was no provision similar to § 13A-5-53, Ala.Code 1975, that addresses the requirements for evaluating the propriety of a death sentence.”
Blackmon v. State, 7 So. 3d 397 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006).
“Last, as required by § 13A-5-53, Ala.Code 1975, we review the propriety of Blackmon's conviction and sentence of death.”
Moody v. State, 888 So. 2d 532 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).
“We have also reviewed Moody's sentence in accordance with § 13A-5-53, Ala.Code 1975, which requires that, in addition to reviewing the case for any error involving Moody's capital-murder convictions, we shall also review the propriety of the death sentence.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-53(b)(3) — 125 cases
Phillips v. State, 65 So. 3d 971 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).
“As required by § 13A-5-53, Ala. Code 1975, we will now address the propriety of Phillips’s death sentence.”
Minor v. State, 914 So. 2d 372 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004).
“We have also reviewed Minor's sentence in accordance with § 13A-5-53, Ala.Code 1975, which requires that, in addition to reviewing the case for any error involving Minor's capital-murder conviction, we also review the propriety of the death sentence.”
Moody v. State, 888 So. 2d 532 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).
“We have also reviewed Moody's sentence in accordance with § 13A-5-53, Ala.Code 1975, which requires that, in addition to reviewing the case for any error involving Moody's capital-murder convictions, we shall also review the propriety of the death sentence.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-53(b)(8) — 1 case
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-53(b)(l) — 41 cases
Blackmon v. State, 7 So. 3d 397 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006).
“Last, as required by § 13A-5-53, Ala.Code 1975, we review the propriety of Blackmon's conviction and sentence of death.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-53(c) — 1 case
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-53(d) — 1 case
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-53(d)(2) — 1 case
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-53(d)(3) — 2 cases
Ex Parte Jackson, 836 So. 2d 979 (Ala. 2002).
“[5] Specifically, the Court noted that the capital-sentencing procedure "ensures that the trial judge is given adequate information and sufficient guidance in deciding whether to accept or to reject a jury's recommended sentence" and that § 13A-5-53, Ala.Code 1975, provided…”
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.