Smith brief in Alabama

1996In determining that Smith was precluded from raising this constitutional issue, the court applied the elements for issue preclusion applicable to administrative hearings, as announced by this Court in Ex parte Shelby Medical Center, Inc. , 564 So.2d 63 (Ala. 1990).

1996In determining that Smith was precluded from raising this constitutional issue, the court applied the elements for issue preclusion applicable to administrative hearings, as announced by this Court in Ex parte Shelby Medical Center, Inc., 564 So.2d 63 (Ala.1990).

2024Smith next argues that "the use of a conviction for [his] juvenile conduct as an aggravating factor making him eligible to receive the death penalty violated [his] right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment." (Smith's brief, p. 51.) According to Smith, "the prosecution presented evidence regarding [his] prior conviction for robbery in the first degree when he was sixteen, and the jury determined that [his] prior conviction was an aggravating factor supporting the imposition of a death sentence." (Smith's brief, p. 51.) Smith, citing Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S.

2024App. 1994): " ' "In Payne [v. Tennessee, 501 46 CR-18- 0599 U.S. 808 , 111 S. Ct. 2597 , 115 L.

2024App. 1994): " ' "In Payne [v. Tennessee, 501 46 CR-18- 0599 U.S. 808 , 111 S. Ct. 2597 , 115 L.

2024We have held that " ' "Alabama law does not require that the jury's advisory verdict be unanimous before it can recommend death," ' Thompson, 153 So. 3d at 179 (quoting Miller v. State, 913 So. 2d 1148 , 1169 n.4 (Ala. Crim.

2024Ed. 2d 384 (2004)], and [Ex parte] Carroll[, 852 So. 2d 833 (Ala. 2002)], and his rights to have mitigation found and considered, a complete defense, due process, a fair trial, and a reliable sentence.' (Smith's brief, pp. 38-39.) "This Court, however, rejected this precise claim in Barbour v. State, 673 So. 2d 461 (Ala. Crim.

2024Ed. 2d 384 (2004)], and [Ex parte] Carroll[, 852 So. 2d 833 (Ala. 2002)], and his rights to have mitigation found and considered, a complete defense, due process, a fair trial, and a reliable sentence.' (Smith's brief, pp. 38-39.) "This Court, however, rejected this precise claim in Barbour v. State, 673 So. 2d 461 (Ala. Crim.

2024"In Cuyler, the United States Supreme Court stated: " 'Holloway [v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978)] requires state trial courts to investigate timely objections to multiple representation.

2024Thus, Smith says the trial court denied him 'his right to present mitigating evidence and receive an individualized sentencing determination under Lockett [v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S. Ct. 2954 , 57 L.

2024Thus, Smith says the trial court denied him 'his right to present mitigating evidence and receive an individualized sentencing determination under Lockett [v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 , 98 S. Ct. 2954 , 57 L.

2024Fletcher v. State, 291 Ala. 67 , 277 So. 2d 882 (1973).

2024Fletcher v. State, 291 Ala. 67 , 277 So. 2d 882 (1973).

2023Nor was there any evidence Ms. Smith acted with malice or 41 SC-2023-0322 improper motive, and it is undisputed that T.B. suffered no injury at all. [Therefore, under Suits v. Glover, 260 Ala. 449 , 71 So. 2d 49 (1954), the] circuit court erred in denying Ms. Smith's motion for a summary judgment." Smith's petition, p. 30.

2023Nor was there any evidence Ms. Smith acted with malice or 41 SC-2023-0322 improper motive, and it is undisputed that T.B. suffered no injury at all. [Therefore, under Suits v. Glover, 260 Ala. 449 , 71 So. 2d 49 (1954), the] circuit court erred in denying Ms. Smith's motion for a summary judgment." Smith's petition, p. 30.

2017Evid., this evidence alerted the jury that "had previously been arrested, jailed, convicted, and put on probation for some prior act." (Smith's brief, at 47.) See Spradley v. State , 128 So.3d 774 , 789-92 (Ala. Crim.

2016In Ford v. State , 831 So.2d 641 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), this Court held that an evidentiary hearing was warranted when a petitioner challenged the voluntariness of his guilty plea on the ground that his trial counsel allegedly misrepresented that he would receive a split sentence if he pleaded guilty.

2016Smith's claim, however, is that he was informed by his counsel that he would be sentenced either to probation or to a split sentence. "[A] misrepresentation by a defendant's counsel, if material, may render a guilty plea involuntary." Ex parte Blackmon , 734 So.2d 995 , 997 (Ala.1999).

2013We therefore grant Southeast and Smith’s petition for the writ of mandamus and direct the circuit court, in the interest of justice, to enter an order transferring the case from the Chambers Circuit Court to the Lee Circuit Court.” Ex parte Southeast Alabama Timber, 94 So.3d at 375-77 .

2012Smith, 543 U.S. at 43 . .

2012The court stated in its order that, because there was no indication that Smith informed either of his counsel that he was taking Haldol or any other medication, nor was there evidence that either doctor who had examined him before trial noted any difficulty attributable to the possible use of Haldol, his counsel had not performed ineffectively under the first prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

2012The court stated in its order that, because there was no indication that Smith informed either of his counsel that he was taking Haldol or any other medication, nor was there evidence that either doctor who had examined him before trial noted any difficulty attributable to the possible use of Haldol, his counsel had not performed ineffectively under the first prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

2012As to Smith’s claim that lethal injection violates the Eighth Amendment because it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, the court determined this claim to be insufficiently pleaded and to lack merit, citing Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 , 128 S.Ct. 1520 , 170 L.Ed.2d 420 (2008).

2012As to Smith’s claim that lethal injection violates the Eighth Amendment because it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, the court determined this claim to be insufficiently pleaded and to lack merit, citing Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 , 128 S.Ct. 1520 , 170 L.Ed.2d 420 (2008).

2012That court’s opinion and Smith’s brief to this Court invoke this Court’s decision in Ex parte Elba General Hospital & Nursing Home, Inc., 828 So.2d 308 (Ala.2001).

2010Therefore, Danley was not justified in stopping Smith and performing a patdown search, and the trial court erred when it denied Smith’s motion to suppress the evidence Danley seized from his person.” 19 So.3d at 919 .

2010Therefore, Danley was not justified in stopping Smith and performing a patdown search, and the trial court erred when it denied Smith's motion to suppress the *1253 evidence Danley seized from his person." 19 So.3d 912 at 919 .

2010However, believing that Smith was correct in his *727 motion to transfer and that jurisdiction over this appeal did not lie with this Court but with the Court of Civil Appeals, and that the Court of Civil Appeals had erred in transferring the appeal to this Court, but recognizing the conflicting opinions of this Court and the Court of Civil Appeals as to appellate jurisdiction, on October 15, 2008, this Court sent to the Alabama Supreme Court a “Request for Transfer to the Alabama Supreme Court,” asking that the Chief Justice designate this case to be transferred to the Supreme Court pursuant

2007Favor v. State, 389 So.2d 556 (Ala.Cr.App.1980); Conley v. State, 354 So.2d 1172 (Ala.Cr.App.1977); C.