Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 13A-5-57 (2026)
Application of Article to Conduct After Effective Date.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
(a) This article applies only to conduct occurring after 12:01 A.M. on July 1, 1981. Conduct occurring before 12:01 A.M. on July 1, 1981 shall be governed by pre-existing law.
(b) Sections 13A-5-30 through 13A-5-38 are hereby repealed. All other laws or parts of laws in conflict with this article are hereby repealed. This repealer shall not affect the application of pre-existing law to conduct occurring before 12:01 A.M. on July 1, 1981.
(Acts 1981, No. 81-178, p. 203, §§19, 20.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1985–2018 · leading case: Baldwin v. Alabama, 472 U.S. 372 (1985).
Baldwin v. Alabama, 472 U.S. 372 (1985). “Acts, §§ 19 and 20, codified as Ala. Code, § 13A-5-57 (1982). [2] Our own research has disclosed no other death-penalty statute currently in effect that requires the jury to return a death "sentence," but then has the judge make the actual sentencing decision.”
Taylor v. State, 666 So. 2d 36 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994). “§ 13A-5-57(e), Code of Alabama 1975. However, the jury's recommendation to the trial court that the appellant should be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole is not binding upon the trial court.”
Sockwell v. State, 675 So. 2d 4 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993). “D The appellant also contends that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty because, he says, it did not give adequate weight to the jury's advisory sentence of life imprisonment without parole.”
Edward Horsley v. State of Alabama, 45 F.3d 1486 (11th Cir. 1995). “Acts § 20, codified as Ala.Code, § 13A-5-57 (1982). . The trial court stated: The Court now considers mitigating circumstances as described in Title 15, Section 342(9) of the 1940 Code of Alabama, as amended: (a) The court finds the only mitigating circumstance would be the age…”
Henderson by Hartsfield v. Alabama Power, 627 So. 2d 878 (Ala. 1993). “on July 1, 1981 (§ 13A-5-57), are unconstitutional under § 11 of the Alabama Constitution.”
Cade v. Haley, 222 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2000). “For crimes committed before July 1, 1981, see Ala. Code § 13A-5-57 (Michie 1994), Alabama capital sentencing proceeds in two phases.”
Herbert Lee Richardson v. Willie Johnson, Warden, Holman Unit, & Fred Smith, Comm'r, Alabama Dep't of Corr., 864 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir. 1989). “Ala.Code § 13A-5-57 (1981). 3 . Although under Hopper and Beck due process protects the defendant’s right to a lesser included offense instruction if the evidence warrants such an instruction, the standard for reviewing whether such an instruction should have been given in a…”
Hays v. State, 518 So. 2d 749 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985). “Therefore, his offense was governed by §§ 13A-5-30 through 13A-5-38, Code of Alabama 1975, as interpreted in Beck v.”
Daniel v. Thigpen, 742 F. Supp. 1535 (M.D. Ala. 1990). “Code § 13A-5-57 (1975) (1982 Repl.Vol.). 4 . In its initial opinion, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals stated that it had reviewed the case in light of the standards and procedures announced in Beck v.”
Tomlin v. Patterson (S.D. Ala. 2018). “CODE § 13A-5-57. The 1981 Act statutorily implemented many of the changes made by the Alabama Supreme Court in Beck but rejected Kyzer’s rule on aggravating circumstances.”
Cade v. Haley, 222 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2000). “3 The court found two aggravating factors: first, that Cade murdered Sheriff Sizemore while 2 Four volumes of documents from Cade’s trial, direct appeal, and state collateral attack were appended as exhibits to his federal habeas corpus checklist.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-5-57(e) — 2 cases
Taylor v. State, 666 So. 2d 36 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994). “§ 13A-5-57(e), Code of Alabama 1975. However, the jury's recommendation to the trial court that the appellant should be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole is not binding upon the trial court.”
Sockwell v. State, 675 So. 2d 4 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993). “D The appellant also contends that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty because, he says, it did not give adequate weight to the jury's advisory sentence of life imprisonment without parole.”
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.