On Friday May 2, 2025, the Alabama Supreme Court and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals released new opinions. Here are the highlights from those decisions.
Ex parte Bonner, SC-2024-2025 (Ala. May 2, 2025)
This a case dealing almost entirely with procedural technicalities about jurisdiction. Bonner was convicted of two counts of first-degree robbery. Before sentencing, the judge granted the motion for judgment of acquittal and adjudicated Bonner guilty of two counts of third-degree robbery. The State then petition the Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of mandamus directing the judgment of acquittal to be set aside, but never requested a stay. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted that petition on the day before the circuit court lost jurisdiction. The circuit court finally held a hearing on setting aside the judgment of acquittal but determined it had lost jurisdiction. The State filed a second petition for mandamus seeking compliance with the first writ, which the Court of Criminal Appeals granted. The Alabama Supreme Court denied Bonner’s writ for mandamus seeking to have the second mandamus overturned. The Supreme Court held that because the circuit court still had jurisdiction over the case when the first mandamus writ was issued, it did not lose jurisdiction over the case and had to comply with the writs.
Hall v. State, CR-2023-0837 (Ala. Crim. App. May 2, 2025)
The Court reversed Hall’s first-degree assault conviction due to insufficient evidence because there wasn’t evidence to show serious physical injury—which is required for first-degree assault. The major difference in first-degree and second-degree assault is that first-degree assault requires a serious physical injury. Alabama courts have previously held that this requires testimony about the extent of the injury, but it is still up to the jury to determine if it was serious based on that testimony. Here there wasn’t testimony about the extent of the injury.
Before reaching the sufficiency issue, the Court held that the Rule 404(b) challenge was not properly preserved. As a general reminder, a motion in limine ruling doesn’t preserve an issue unless the Court specifically says it there is a standing objection to it. Always object at the time the challenged evidence is admitted. The Court also rejected arguments about jury instructions on self-defense.
Alisha McKay from our office was the main attorney in this case.
Ex parte Bailey, CR-2024-0635 (Ala. Crim. App. May 2, 2025)
This case deals with issues that lower courts have really needed guidance on. The rule on pre-trial bond changed a lot with the passage of Aniah’s Law and everyone has been a little confused about what was required in terms of procedure and due process.
Here Bailey challenged the bond order on multiple grounds that were all rejected. First, he challenged it for failing to comply with § 15-13-3(b)(8)’s 48 hour provision and therefore the circuit court lost authority to deny bond. The Court rejected this after determining that the 48 hour provision is directory—not mandatory—and even if it was mandatory, it isn’t jurisdictional. Harmless error also applies.
Second, Bailey challenged the order’s sufficiency regarding written factual findings and reasons for denying bail, but the Court held this argument was meritless based on the testimony at the hearing. The Court looked to Morrissey v. Brewer’s requirements of minimum due process for revocations for support.
T.A.A. v. State, CR-2024-0056 (Ala. Crim. App. May 2, 2025)
This case is another case dealing with illegal sentences. Over the last few years, the Alabama appellate courts have taken a zero tolerance policy towards illegal sentences.
Here, in an earlier decision, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the sentences for T.A.A,’s Class A felony convictions as illegal. The Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the case to the circuit court to correct the illegal sentences and allow T.A.A. the opportunity to withdraw his plea agreement because the plea agreement involved negotiated sentences, including the illegal sentences.
On remand, the circuit court denied T.A.A.’s motion to withdraw his plea. On return from remand, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. Because the negotiated plea agreement included illegal sentences as part of the terms, the plea agreement itself was bad and T.A.A. should have been allowed to withdraw it.
The State then questioned whether this should include the part of the plea dealing with the B felony convictions that didn’t involve illegal sentences and whether those charges were severable. The Court of Criminal Appeals looked to the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Turley, 69 P.3 338 (Wa. 2023), which applied principles of contract law to say that the portion of the plea agreement dealing with B felonies was not severable from the portion dealing with the problematic A felonies.
J.M.M. v. State, CR-2024-0086 (Ala. Crim. App. May 2, 2025)/A.E.M. v. State, CR-2024-0157 (Ala. Crim. App. May 2, 2025)
This is a case where a husband and wife were charged and convicted of child abuse and the Court of Criminal Appeals issued a joint opinion.
For J.M.M., the Court rejected challenges to the weight of the evidence and lesser included offense instruction, but reversed the restitution aspect of the sentence. The circuit court had imposed restitution to cover costs related to the State’s expert witness. The circuit court’s attempts to correct this were procedurally problematic, but also circuit courts lack any authority to order defendants to reimburse the State for expert witness costs because the State is not a victim.
For A.E.M., the Court held that the spousal text messages were admissible as made in furtherance of a crime, there was no election requirement, and the sentence wasn’t illegal.
T.L.B. v. State, CR-2023-0514 (Ala. Crim. App. May 2, 2025)
Maybe the most important of all the constitutional rights criminal defendants have is the right to counsel. Depriving a defendant of counsel is pretty much an automatic reversal. But, defendants can chose to waive their right to counsel. But this waiver has a number of procedural safeguards to ensure that the defendant understood what the waiver meant.
In this case, the record from T.L.B.’s trial did not show proof that the circuit court conducted a proper colloquy on waiver of counsel. And without support that a proper waiver occurred, the convictions were reversed.
Ex parte Jefferson Count Dept. of Human Resources, CR-2024-0326 (Ala. Crim. App. May 2, 2025)
This an unusual case for the Court of Criminal Appeals dealing with reimbursement costs related to a detention order between Jeff Co DHR and the Chilton County Commission.
