238 So. 3d 1268
Ala. Crim. App.2016Background
- Wimbley was convicted of two capital murders (during a robbery and an arson) and sentenced to death; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal in 2014.
- The U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of Hurst v. Florida; Alabama Court allowed briefing on remand.
- Wimbley argued Hurst invalidated Alabama’s capital-sentencing scheme because the jury’s penalty-phase role is advisory, sentencing recommendation need not be unanimous, and the judge makes final factual and weighing determinations.
- The court analyzed whether Apprendi, Ring, and Hurst require more than a jury finding of an aggravating circumstance that makes a defendant death-eligible.
- Court concluded the jury had already, via the guilt verdict, unanimously found an aggravating circumstance (murder during robbery), satisfying the Sixth Amendment under Ring/Hurst.
- The court affirmed Wimbley’s convictions and death sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hurst invalidates Alabama’s capital-sentencing scheme | Hurst requires jury, not judge, to make the critical findings (including weighing) necessary for death sentence | Alabama: Ring/Hurst require only jury finding of aggravating circumstance making defendant death-eligible; judge may weigh and impose within range | Hurst/Ring only require jury find existence of aggravating factor; Alabama scheme constitutional where jury found aggravator at trial |
| Whether the weighing of aggravating vs. mitigating factors must be done by the jury | Jury must determine that aggravators outweigh mitigators to satisfy Sixth Amendment | Weighing is a moral/legal judgment, not a fact; not subject to proof beyond reasonable doubt, so judge may weigh | Weighing is not a factual finding; jury weighing not required by Sixth Amendment |
| Whether an advisory jury sentencing instruction conflicts with Hurst | An advisory recommendation is insufficient under Hurst; jury recommendation cannot substitute for required factual findings | Advisory recommendation is permissible so long as jury has made the required aggravator finding; judge may rely on recommendation when sentencing | Advisory recommendation is acceptable when jury has already found, beyond reasonable doubt, the aggravating factor making defendant death-eligible |
| Whether Wimbley’s death sentence violated the Sixth Amendment because judge made final findings | Judge’s final factual and weighing findings rendered sentence unconstitutional under Hurst | Jury’s guilt-phase verdict established the aggravating circumstance; judge’s later weighing does not infringe Sixth Amendment | Wimbley’s Sixth Amendment rights not violated because jury unanimously found the aggravating circumstance during guilt phase |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (holds facts that increase penalty above statutory maximum must be found by jury)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (Sixth Amendment requires jury find aggravating circumstance making defendant death-eligible)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (applies Ring to Florida; judge-alone factfinding to make defendant death-eligible is unconstitutional)
- Ex parte Bohannon, 222 So. 3d 525 (Ala. 2016) (Alabama Supreme Court: Hurst does not invalidate Alabama scheme where jury finds aggravator)
- Ex parte Waldrop, 859 So. 2d 1181 (Ala. 2002) (weighing aggravating vs. mitigating factors is not a factual finding requiring jury decision)
- Ex parte McNabb, 887 So. 2d 998 (Ala. 2004) (jury must unanimously find an aggravating circumstance during penalty phase or special verdict)