Jeffery Lee v. Alabama

In Hurst v. Florida, this Court applied the rule announced in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and held that Florida’s capital sentencing statute violated the Sixth Amendment because it allowed “a judge [to] increase[] [the] authorized punishment based on her own factfinding.” 136 S. Ct. 616, 622 (2016). In Alabama, at the time of Petitioner Jeffery Lee’s trial, a capital murder conviction did not, on its own, authorize the the death penalty. Instead, a defendant convicted of a capital offense could be sentenced to death only after a separate sentencing hearing where “the trial court shall determine whether the aggravating circumstances it finds to exist outweigh the mitigating circumstances it finds to exist.” Ala. Code § 13A-5-47 (2001) (emphasis added). The jury could issue an advisory verdict, but it “is not binding upon the court.” § 13A-5-47(e). Based on his independent factfinding, a judge sentenced Petitioner Lee to death under that statute, over-riding the jury’s recommendation that Lee be sentenced to life in prison. The questions presented are:

1. Whether the Court should overrule Harris v. Alabama, 513 U.S. 504 (1995), pursuant to the rules announced in Ring and Hurst, because the statute used to sentence Petitioner violates the Sixth Amendment.

2. Whether Hurst is retroactive to a litigant who timely raised and preserved a claim based on Ring. (i)