Case ID: so2d_414/html/0452-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. \n      MADDOX, JONES and ADAMS, Justices", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wayne Eugene RITTER v. STATE of Alabama.
    77-798.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Dec. 11, 1981.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 8, 1982.
    John L. Carroll, Montgomery and Joe McLean, Birmingham, for petitioner.
    Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Ed Carnes and Jack M. Curtis, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

The United States Supreme Court - U.S.-, 102 S.Ct. 376, 70 L.Ed.2d 200 has remanded this case to this Court for further consideration in light of Reed v. State, Ala., 403 So.2d 154 (1981), extended on rehearing (August 28, 1981), motion for clarification denied (October 7, 1981).

On June 12, 1981, this Court, 403 So.2d 154, extended its initial opinion in the present case to explain that our reversal and remand was compelled by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 100 S.Ct. 2382, 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980), and Beck v. State, Ala., 396 So.2d 645 (1980), and was “consistent with the interpretation of that decision” reached by the Fifth Circuit in Evans v. Britton, 639 F.2d 221 (1981). We adopt our previous opinion and now unequivocally hold that our previous opinion in this case was based upon federal constitutional grounds, not state law grounds. Moreover, our opinion in Reed v. State, supra, rather than altering our previous decision in this ease explained further why we felt compelled by federal constitutional considerations to reverse the conviction in this case.

ORIGINAL OPINION EXTENDED.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

TORBERT, C. J., and FAULKNER, SHORES, EMBRY and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

ALMON, J., concurs in the result.

MADDOX, JONES and ADAMS, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.

MADDOX, JONES and ADAMS, Justices

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

We agree that, on original deliverance, when the Justices ordered a new trial in this cause, they were of the opinion that the federal constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States in Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 100 S.Ct. 2382, 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980), mandated a new trial as to both the issue of guilt and the issue of sentencing.

We still hold the view which we expressed in the original deliverance of the opinion in this cause, filed on May 8, 1981, and published under the rehearing date of June 12,1981, that Beck v. Alabama, supra, did not mandate a new trial as to the issue of guilt, only as to the issue of sentencing. See our special opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part, in Ritter v. State, 403 So.2d 154 (Ala.1981).