Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Boyd v. Stategreen2 sentences2000We have recently held: "while Parker [v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308 , 111 S.Ct. 731 , 112 L.Ed.2d 812 (1991) ] and Ex parte Henderson may suggest that the differential treatment of an accomplice may be a proper subject for consideration as mitigating evidence in a capital case, neither case remotely holds that a trial court is obligated to so find, and neither case lends support to Burgess's claim that the trial court erred in his case. `"Although the trial court is required to consider all mitigating circumstances, the decision whether a particular mitigating circumstance is proven and the weight t 2000We have recently held: "`[W]hile Parker [v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308 , 111 S.Ct. 731 , 112 L.Ed.2d 812 (1991)] and Ex parte Henderson, may suggest that the differential treatment of an accomplice may be a proper subject for consideration as mitigating evidence in a capital case, neither case remotely holds that a trial court is obligated to so find, and neither case lends support to Burgess's claim that the trial court erred in his case. "`Although the trial court is required to consider all mitigating circumstances, the decision whether a particular mitigating circumstance is proven and the weigh | 3 | 3 |
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2000We have recently held: "while Parker [v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308 , 111 S.Ct. 731 , 112 L.Ed.2d 812 (1991) ] and Ex parte Henderson may suggest that the differential treatment of an accomplice may be a proper subject for consideration as mitigating evidence in a capital case, neither case remotely holds that a trial court is obligated to so find, and neither case lends support to Burgess's claim that the trial court erred in his case. `"Although the trial court is required to consider all mitigating circumstances, the decision whether a particular mitigating circumstance is proven and the weight t 2000We have recently held: "`[W]hile Parker [v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308 , 111 S.Ct. 731 , 112 L.Ed.2d 812 (1991)] and Ex parte Henderson, may suggest that the differential treatment of an accomplice may be a proper subject for consideration as mitigating evidence in a capital case, neither case remotely holds that a trial court is obligated to so find, and neither case lends support to Burgess's claim that the trial court erred in his case. "`Although the trial court is required to consider all mitigating circumstances, the decision whether a particular mitigating circumstance is proven and the weigh | 3 | 3 |
James v. Stategreen1 sentence2009E.g., James v. State, 681 So.2d 269, 269-71 (Ala.Cr.App.1996); McHarris v. State, 623 So.2d 400, 400-01 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). | 1 | 1 |
McHarris v. Stategreen1 sentence2009E.g., James v. State, 681 So.2d 269, 269-71 (Ala.Cr.App.1996); McHarris v. State, 623 So.2d 400, 400-01 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Lancaster v. Statered1 sentence2005In other words, it is not the pleading of a conclusion `which, if true, entitle[s] the petitioner to relief.' Lancaster v. State, 638 So.2d 1370, 1373 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Boyd v. Stategreen2 sentences2005On appeal Burgess argues that "[n]ot all forms of ineffective assistance of counsel require the presentation of testimonial evidence at an evidentiary hearing." (Burgess's brief at page 53.) However, we have stated "`Rule 32.6(b) requires that the petition itself disclose the facts relied upon in seeking relief.' Boyd v. State, 746 So.2d 364, 406 (Ala.Crim.App.1999). 2005Burgess's claim `is speculative; he has not presented a single specific allegation suggesting that an incomplete record caused him to suffer prejudice [on appeal].' Boyd v. State, 746 So.2d 364, 381 (Ala.Crim.App.1999). | 1 | 1 |
Payne v. Stategreen1 sentence2005As we stated in Payne v. State, 791 So.2d 383, 399 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (opinion on return to remand): "Because it appears that [the appellant] did not present evidence at the evidentiary hearing with regard to [certain] claims . . ., we conclude that he has abandoned these claims and we will not review them." In part I.G. of our opinion we addressed Burgess's claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to allegedly inflammatory photographs. | 1 | 1 |
Burgess v. Stategreen1 sentence2000We have recently held: "`[W]hile Parker [v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308 , 111 S.Ct. 731 , 112 L.Ed.2d 812 (1991)] and Ex parte Henderson, may suggest that the differential treatment of an accomplice may be a proper subject for consideration as mitigating evidence in a capital case, neither case remotely holds that a trial court is obligated to so find, and neither case lends support to Burgess's claim that the trial court erred in his case. "`Although the trial court is required to consider all mitigating circumstances, the decision whether a particular mitigating circumstance is proven and the weigh | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Boyd
green
2 sentences2000We have recently held: "while Parker [v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308 , 111 S.Ct. 731 , 112 L.Ed.2d 812 (1991) ] and Ex parte Henderson may suggest that the differential treatment of an accomplice may be a proper subject for consideration as mitigating evidence in a capital case, neither case remotely holds that a trial court is obligated to so find, and neither case lends support to Burgess's claim that the trial court erred in his case. `"Although the trial court is required to consider all mitigating circumstances, the decision whether a particular mitigating circumstance is proven and the weight t 2000We have recently held: "`[W]hile Parker [v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308 , 111 S.Ct. 731 , 112 L.Ed.2d 812 (1991)] and Ex parte Henderson, may suggest that the differential treatment of an accomplice may be a proper subject for consideration as mitigating evidence in a capital case, neither case remotely holds that a trial court is obligated to so find, and neither case lends support to Burgess's claim that the trial court erred in his case. "`Although the trial court is required to consider all mitigating circumstances, the decision whether a particular mitigating circumstance is proven and the weigh | 3 | 1998–2000 |
Ex Parte Pierce
green
2 sentences2008Burgess further informed the trial court that the “claims were not raised at trial or on direct appeal because counsel had no information that such misconduct had occurred and therefore was under no obligation to raise the claims.” Id. 2008Burgess further informed the trial court that the "claims were not raised at trial or on direct appeal because counsel had no information that such misconduct had occurred and therefore was under no obligation to raise the claims." Id. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Burgess v. State
neutral
2 sentences2008The Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the cause to the trial court for a determination of “the factual basis of Burgess’s allegations that several jurors failed to fully respond to voir dire questions and to determine when and how Burgess discovered the basis of these claims, and if the claims could have been raised by newly appointed counsel in Burgess’s motion for a new trial.” Burgess v. State, 21 So.3d 745 (Ala.Crim.App.2006). 2008The Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the cause to the trial court for a determination of "the factual basis of Burgess's allegations that several jurors failed to fully respond to voir dire questions and to determine when and how Burgess discovered the basis of these claims, and if the claims could have been raised by newly appointed counsel in Burgess's motion for a new trial." Burgess v. State , 21 So.3d 745 (Ala.Crim.App. 2006). | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Dixon v. United States
green
2 sentences2000We have recently held: "while Parker [v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308 , 111 S.Ct. 731 , 112 L.Ed.2d 812 (1991) ] and Ex parte Henderson may suggest that the differential treatment of an accomplice may be a proper subject for consideration as mitigating evidence in a capital case, neither case remotely holds that a trial court is obligated to so find, and neither case lends support to Burgess's claim that the trial court erred in his case. `"Although the trial court is required to consider all mitigating circumstances, the decision whether a particular mitigating circumstance is proven and the weight t 2000We have recently held: "`[W]hile Parker [v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308 , 111 S.Ct. 731 , 112 L.Ed.2d 812 (1991)] and Ex parte Henderson, may suggest that the differential treatment of an accomplice may be a proper subject for consideration as mitigating evidence in a capital case, neither case remotely holds that a trial court is obligated to so find, and neither case lends support to Burgess's claim that the trial court erred in his case. "`Although the trial court is required to consider all mitigating circumstances, the decision whether a particular mitigating circumstance is proven and the weigh | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Keller v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2000We have recently held: "while Parker [v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308 , 111 S.Ct. 731 , 112 L.Ed.2d 812 (1991) ] and Ex parte Henderson may suggest that the differential treatment of an accomplice may be a proper subject for consideration as mitigating evidence in a capital case, neither case remotely holds that a trial court is obligated to so find, and neither case lends support to Burgess's claim that the trial court erred in his case. `"Although the trial court is required to consider all mitigating circumstances, the decision whether a particular mitigating circumstance is proven and the weight t 2000We have recently held: "`[W]hile Parker [v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308 , 111 S.Ct. 731 , 112 L.Ed.2d 812 (1991)] and Ex parte Henderson, may suggest that the differential treatment of an accomplice may be a proper subject for consideration as mitigating evidence in a capital case, neither case remotely holds that a trial court is obligated to so find, and neither case lends support to Burgess's claim that the trial court erred in his case. "`Although the trial court is required to consider all mitigating circumstances, the decision whether a particular mitigating circumstance is proven and the weigh | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Parker v. Dugger
green
2 sentences2000We have recently held: "while Parker [v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308 , 111 S.Ct. 731 , 112 L.Ed.2d 812 (1991) ] and Ex parte Henderson may suggest that the differential treatment of an accomplice may be a proper subject for consideration as mitigating evidence in a capital case, neither case remotely holds that a trial court is obligated to so find, and neither case lends support to Burgess's claim that the trial court erred in his case. `"Although the trial court is required to consider all mitigating circumstances, the decision whether a particular mitigating circumstance is proven and the weight t 2000We have recently held: "while Parker [v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308 , 111 S.Ct. 731 , 112 L.Ed.2d 812 (1991) ] and Ex parte Henderson may suggest that the differential treatment of an accomplice may be a proper subject for consideration as mitigating evidence in a capital case, neither case remotely holds that a trial court is obligated to so find, and neither case lends support to Burgess's claim that the trial court erred in his case. `"Although the trial court is required to consider all mitigating circumstances, the decision whether a particular mitigating circumstance is proven and the weight t | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Teague v. Lane
red
1 sentence2005As we stated in Clemons v. State, [Ms. CR-01-1355, August 29, 2003] ___ So.2d ___, ___ (Ala.Crim.App.2003): "[W]e conclude that the decision in Atkins falls within Teague's first exception to the general rule of nonretroactivity and applies retroactively to cases that are on collateral review. [ See Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989)]. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Atkins v. Virginia
green
2 sentences2005Burgess, citing Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), argues that it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution to execute a mentally retarded individual and that he is borderline mentally retarded. *299 The circuit court erroneously held that Burgess's claim of mental retardation was procedurally barred because it was not presented in a timely filed Rule 32 petition. 2005Burgess, citing Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), argues that it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution to execute a mentally retarded individual and that he is borderline mentally retarded. *299 The circuit court erroneously held that Burgess's claim of mental retardation was procedurally barred because it was not presented in a timely filed Rule 32 petition. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Griffin v. State
green
1 sentence2000We have recently held: "`[W]hile Parker [v. Dugger, 498 U.S. 308 , 111 S.Ct. 731 , 112 L.Ed.2d 812 (1991)] and Ex parte Henderson, may suggest that the differential treatment of an accomplice may be a proper subject for consideration as mitigating evidence in a capital case, neither case remotely holds that a trial court is obligated to so find, and neither case lends support to Burgess's claim that the trial court erred in his case. "`Although the trial court is required to consider all mitigating circumstances, the decision whether a particular mitigating circumstance is proven and the weigh | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Ex Parte Williams
green
1 sentence1998However, while Parker and Henderson v. State may suggest that the differential treatment of an accomplice may be a proper subject for consideration as mitigating evidence in a capital case, neither case remotely holds that a trial court is obligated to so find, and neither case lends support to Burgess's claim that the trial court erred in his case. "`Although the trial court is required to consider all mitigating circumstances, the decision of whether a particular mitigating circumstance is proven and the weight to be given it rests with the sentencer.'" Boyd v. State, 715 So.2d 825, 840 (Ala | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Williams v. Alabama
green
2 sentences1998However, while Parker and Henderson v. State may suggest that the differential treatment of an accomplice may be a proper subject for consideration as mitigating evidence in a capital case, neither case remotely holds that a trial court is obligated to so find, and neither case lends support to Burgess's claim that the trial court erred in his case. "`Although the trial court is required to consider all mitigating circumstances, the decision of whether a particular mitigating circumstance is proven and the weight to be given it rests with the sentencer.'" Boyd v. State, 715 So.2d 825, 840 (Ala 1998However, while Parker and Henderson v. State may suggest that the differential treatment of an accomplice may be a proper subject for consideration as mitigating evidence in a capital case, neither case remotely holds that a trial court is obligated to so find, and neither case lends support to Burgess's claim that the trial court erred in his case. "`Although the trial court is required to consider all mitigating circumstances, the decision of whether a particular mitigating circumstance is proven and the weight to be given it rests with the sentencer.'" Boyd v. State, 715 So.2d 825, 840 (Ala | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Hammond v. City of Gadsden
green
1 sentence1988Where, as here, the trial judge has reviewed and overruled the defendant’s request for remittitur as a condition for the denial of a new trial, and where the amount of the verdict does not appear on its face to be the product of a biased or prejudiced jury, we find no necessity to follow the remand procedure set out in Hammond v. City of Gadsden, 493 So.2d 1374 (Ala.1986). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.