§

Ala. Code § 13A-5-53

Section 13A-5-53 - Appellate review of death sentence; scope; remand; specific determinations to be made by court; authority of court following review
Section 13A-5-53 - Appellate review of death sentence; scope; remand; specific determinations to be made by court; authority of court following review

11 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. CLARK (WILLIAM CLINTON)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed June 17, 2005

    Twenty states have statutes similar to that of Georgia,”’ and seven havejudicially instituted similar review.” 77 (See Ala. Code § 13A-5-53(b)(3) (1982); Conn. Gen.Stat. Ann. § 53a- 46b(b)(3) (West 1993); Del. Code Ann.tit. 11, § 4209(g)(2) (1992); Ga. Code Ann.§ 17-10-35(c)(3) (Harrison 1990); Idaho Code § 19-2827(c)(3) (1987); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 532.075(3) (Michie 1985); La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 905.9.1(1)(c) (West 1984); Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-105(3)(c) (1993); Mont. Code Ann.§ 46-18-310(3) (1993); Neb. Rev.Stat. §§ 29-2521.

  2. PEOPLE v. KOPATZ (KIM RAYMOND)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed December 19, 2011

    One reasonforthis is that the scope of the special circumstancesthat rendera first-degree murderereligible for the death penalty is now unduly broad. (See Shatz & Rivkind, The California Death Penalty Scheme: Requiemfor Furman?, *7 See Ala. Code § 13A-5-53(b)(3) (1982); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 53a- 46b(b)(3) (West 1993); Del. Code Ann.tit. 11, § 4209(g)(2) (1992); Ga. Code Ann. § 17-10-35(c)(3) (Harrison 1990); Idaho Code § 192827( c)(3) (1987); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 532.075(3) (Michie 1985); La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 905.9.1(1)(c) (West 1984); Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19- 105(3)(c) (1993); Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-310(3) (1993); Neb. Rev.Stat. §§ 29-2521.01, 03, 29-2522(3) (1989); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann § 177.055 (d) (Michie 1992); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 630:5(X1)(c) (1992); N.M.Stat.

  3. PEOPLE v. ROUNTREE (CHARLES F.)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed September 14, 2009

    Thus, the vast majority of the states that sanction capital punishment require comparative or inter-case proportionality review. 124 124 See Ala. Code § 13A-5-53(b)(3) (1982); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 53a-46b(b)(3) (West 1993); Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4209(g)(2) (1992); . Ga. Code Ann. § 17-10-35(c)(3) (Harrison 1990); Idaho Code § 19- 2827(c)(3) (1987); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 532.075(3) (Michie 1985); La. . Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 905.9.1(1)(c) (West 1984); Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-105(3)(c) (1993); Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-310(3) (1993); Neb. 224 The capital sentencing scheme in effect at the time ofMr. Rountree's trial was the type of scheme that the Pulley Court had in· mind when it said that "there could be a capital sentencing system so lacking in other checks on arbitrariness that it would not pass constitutional muster without comparative proportionality review."

  4. PEOPLE v. ROMERO (ORLANDO) & SELF (CHRISTOPHER)

    Appellant, Christopher Self, Opening Brief

    Filed September 25, 2006

    Thus, unlike California, the vast majority of the states that sanction capital punishment require some type of comparative or intercase proportionality review. 4s 487 See Ala. Code § 13A-5-53(b)(3) (1982); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 53a- 46b(b)(3) (West 1993); Del. Code Ann.tit. 11, § 4209(g)(2) (1992); Ga. Code Ann. § 17-10-35(c)(3) (Harrison 1990); Idaho Code § 19-2827(c)(3) (1987); Ky. Rev.Stat. Ann. § 532.075(3) (Michie 1985); La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.art. 905.9.1(1)(c) (West 1984); Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-105(3)(c) (1993); Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-310(3) (1993); Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-2521.

  5. PEOPLE v. BRYANT

    Appellant, Stanley Bryant, Opening Brief

    Filed December 16, 2004

    Thus, the vast majority of the states that sanction capital punishment require comparative or intercase proportionality review.’ _ 4 See Ala. Code § 13A-5-53(b)(3) (1982); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann.§ 53a-46b(b)(3) (West 1993); Del. Code Ann.tit. 11, § 4209(g)(2) (1992); Ga. Code Ann. § 17-10-35(c)(3) (Harrison 1990); Idaho Code § 19- 2827(c)(3) (1987); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 532.075(3) (Michie 1985); La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.art. 905,9.1(1)(c) (West 1984); Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-105(3)(c) (1993); Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-310(3) (1993); Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-2521.01, 29-2522(3) (1989); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann § 177.055 (d) (Michie 1992); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 630:5(XD(c) (1992); N.M.Stat.

  6. PEOPLE v. ADAMS

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed June 22, 2011

    That is why the vast majority (31 out of 34) of the states that sanction capital punishment require comparative, or intercase, proportionality review. °° *© See Ala. Code § 13A-5-53(b)(3) (1982); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 53a-46b(b)(3) (West 1993); Del. Code Ann.tit. 11, § 4209(g)(2) (1992); Ga. Code Ann. § 17-10-35(c)(3) (Harrison 1990); Idaho Code § 19- 2827(c)(3) (1987); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 532.075(3) (Michie 1985); La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.art. 905.9.1(1)(c) (West 1984); Miss. Code Ann.§ 99-19-105(3)(c) (1993); Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-310(3) (1993); Neb. Rev.Stat. §§ 29-2521.01, 03, 29-2522(3) (1989); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann § 177.055 (d) (Michie 1992); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 630:5(X1)(c) (1992); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-20A-4(c)(4) (Michie 1990); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A- 2000(d)(2) (1983); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2929.05(A) (Baldwin 1992); 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9711(h)(3)(aii) (1993); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3- 25(c)(3) (Law.

  7. PEOPLE v. MERRIMAN

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed September 21, 2010

    cseccsscceseecessceeseesceecscerseeeeesecaeessecnersseesseesereeness in passim Section 1158... eeeseeeeseceeseceseeecseeeseeeseeeseeeeeeeseeeneseeasecseesarees295 Section L1O1icceeescsssssesessecseesseeseensseesssesseseseessnssneessseeses in passim Section 1108.0... ececcccssssccesssecessceeesecesseesssessesesseeeeserecsaeeseas in passim Section L150.eecceeseseeceseesseesecseeeseeecenseeeeeseseacensesseneeeeeeees 104 Section 1240.0... .cccsseescesecsseccsccsesesseccsseceseeseessecsesseteneseneeeeesneeas 197 (xxiv) Penal Code Section 190.2...csccssseessecccesssscessssessesevssecsssecssescssesssseseeseeeesin passim Section 190.3... ecccscccsssccscccceseeccsscesssoesensessencceseecceeeesensctsesaensin passim S€CtION 954.0 eescccseeeeseeesssessssssessecessseessseessseeceresssesesesesceeeees 126 Section 954.1vesessecsssecssseessssssssssesesesesesesesesssesssesesseeeoes 126 ‘OUT OF STATE STATUTORY AUTHORITY Ala. Code sec 13A-5-45,46........cccccccccssssscccscessssseseseseeeeeeness269, 309 . Ala. Code section 13A-5-53.........cceseeseessseescceeceeeesenceseeeenes313 Ark. Code Ann Section 5-4-603..........cccccccccccssessscsccssseeeeessees269, 270, 292 309, 313 Ariz. Rev . Stat. Ann. Sec 13-703 (C ).....ceeeccssreceessreceeees 369, 270, 309 Colo Rev State 16-11 103...eeeeseescesteeeecseseeeteeeeesees292 Conn. Gen Stat. Ann section 53a-46A (€)..........::cccesceesenees269, 309 Conn. Gen Stat. Ann section 53a-46D............cccccccccccceseeteeees269, 270 Del Code Ann tit 11, section 4209 (d) (1)... ce eesesereereeeeees269, 309 Fla. St. Ann. Section 921.141(3)...... eeeesccssseeresseesteeserees269, 309 Ga Code Ann sec 17-10-30...eesceessssssesssssesssssesseeees269, 309 Ga Code Ann sec 17-10-35... eeessceeeceseeesceseeeteeesneeenes314 Idaho Code sec 19-2515 ...iccccceeccccecccscccccccnscssssssesssnsnsrssssesees269, 314 Idaho Code sec 19-2827 (€ ) (3).....cssccssssssesscssssseseseseeeeseenes314 (xxv) aARALIRENATELEANmr Ee NOTSn a GE Uy coPN iitatentedAALSREPRISMANNRE EH ge tg TI. Stat Ann ch 38...escese

  8. PEOPLE v. JONES (WILLIAM ALFRED)

    Appellant's Opening Brief

    Filed September 15, 2005

    88 2.00.ceceeee eens 183 CODE 21 U.S.C. § 84800ccceens 206 OTHER STATE STATUTES Ala. Code § 13A-5-45 000.ceeeen ees 193 Ala. Code §§ 13A-5-46, 47 2000.eens219 Ala. Code § 13A-5-53 2.teens 219, 223 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-703 ........... 000. .000008, 193, 197, 219 Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-603 20.0000ees 193, 219 Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 16-11-103 ........ 0.000.000.0000 ..0000. 193 Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 53a-46a ............0..0.0..00000. 193, 219, 223 Del. Code Ann.tit. 11, §4209.......................00.05. 193, 223 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 921.141... 0.0.0.eens220 Ga. Code Ann. § 1710-30 1.0...cee 193, 220 Ga. Code Ann. § 1710-35 20...ccceens 223 XXXIV Ga. Code. Ann. § 27-25372...ene223 Idaho Code § 19-2515 . 2...2.nes 193, 220 Idaho Code § 19-2827 .. 0...cette223 Ill. Ann. Stat. ch. 38, para. 9-1 0.eeenee 193 Ind. Code Ann. §§ 35-50-2-9 00...eee 193 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 532.025... 0.0... eee ee 193, 220 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 532.075 2.0.0...eee nee 223 La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art.905.3 00.0.0... cece 193 La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 905.7 20... .0. 000.0 220 La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 905.9.1 0.0.0.0... 0... cee eee 223 Md. Ann. Code art. 27, §§ 413 2...cc

  9. PEOPLE v. LOPEZ (JUAN M.)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed May 25, 2005

    42. See Ala. Code § 13A-5-53(b)(3) (1982); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 53a-46b(b)(3) (West 1993); Del. Code Ann.tit. 11, § 4209(g)(2) (1992); Ga. Code Ann. § 17-10-35(c)(3) (Harrison 1990); Idaho Code § 19- 2827(c)(3) (1987); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 532.075(3) (Michie 1985); La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 905.9.1(1)(c) (West 1984); Miss. Code Ann.§ 99-19-105(3)(c) (1993); Mont. Code Ann. § 46-18-310(3) (1993); Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-2521.01, 29-2522(3) (1989); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann § | 177.055 (d) (Michie 1992); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 630:5(X1)(c) (1992); N.M.Stat.

  10. PEOPLE v. SOUZA (MATTHEW ARIC)

    Appellant's Opening Brief

    Filed January 18, 2005

    Thus, the vast majority ofthe states that sanction capital punishment require comparative or intercase proportionality review.” 6 See Ala. Code § 13A-5-53(b)(3) (1982); Conn. Gen.Stat. Ann. §53a- 46b(b)(3) (West 1993); Del. Code Ann.tit. 11, § 4209(g)(2) (1992);Ga.