 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tomlin v. State5/31/2002
upreme Court addressed this issue in Potts v. State, 426 So. 2d 896, 900 (Ala. 1983), where the court stated,
"The appellant's argument that applying in his trial the procedures we set forth in Beck v. State, 396 So. 2d 645 (Ala. 1980), violated the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution is without merit. The United States Supreme Court in an analogous decision involving Florida's death penalty statute, found no violation of the ex post facto clause existed. See Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977)."
D.
Tomlin argues that judicial override under the old death- penalty statute is arbitrary and capricious. This issue was addressed in Daniels v. State, 534 So. 2d 628 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985), aff'd, 534 So. 2d 656 (Ala. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1040 (1987). In Daniels we stated:
"Daniels's final assertion of unconstitutionality of the sentencing scheme of the 1975 Act -- that the statute provides no procedures or standards safeguarding against arbitrary and capricious sentences of death -- is likewise without merit. Section 13-11-3 requires that upon a jury's verdict of guilty, the trial court must hold a separate hearing to aid it in determining whether to impose the sentence of death or of life imprisonment without parole. It further provides that any relevant evidence may be presented and that evidence relating to the enumerated aggravating and the mitigating circumstances must be presented. Section 13-11-4 provides that the court shall imposed the appropriate sentence only after weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and that, in the event the court imposes the death penalty, it shall set forth in writing its findings of fact, which shall include the enumerated aggravating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances that formed the basis for the sentence. These procedures afford a constitutional sentencing scheme which is in nowise tainted by arbitrariness or capriciousness; the provisions for the separate proceeding allow and require focus on the circumstances of the particular offense and the character of the defendant, thus channeling the sentencing authority's discretion. Ritter v. State, 429 So. 2d 928, 936-37 (Ala. 1983). See also Jacobs v. State, 361 So. 2d 607, 628-34 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977), aff'd 361 So. 2d 640 (Ala. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1122, 99 S.Ct. 1034, 59 L.Ed.2d 83 (1979)." 534 So. 2d at 645.
E.
Tomlin last argues that death by electrocution is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This issue is now moot. Recently, the Legislature passed Act No. 2002-492, Ala. Acts 2002, which will become effective on July 1, 2002. This Act changes the primary method of execution from the electric chair to lethal injection. The Act, in part, amends § 15-18-1, Ala. Code 1975, to provide that "A death sentence shall be executed by lethal injection, unless the person sentenced to death affirmatively elects to be executed by electrocution." This Acts applies to all persons currently on Alabama's death row.
Appellate Review
XXIV.
Last, we will address the propriety of Tomlin's conviction and his sentence to death. Tomlin was tried and convicted under the former death-penalty statute, § 13-11-1, Ala. Code 1975 (superseded). 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. However, the Alabama Supreme Court in Beck v. State, 396 So. 2d 645 (Ala. 1980), stated the following about appellate review of death-penalty cases:
"To insure that sentences of d
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|