Betton v. State (Ex parte Betton), 1180353

292 So.3d 406 (Mem)

EX PARTE John Fitzgerald BETTON

(In re: John Fitzgerald Betton

v.State of Alabama)

1180353

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 21, 2019

Alicia A. D’Addario and Rachel P. Judge of Equal Justice Initiative, Montgomery; and Angela C. Morgan, Fort Payne, for petitioner.

Submitted on petitioner’s brief only.

BRYAN, Justice.

WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION.

Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Shaw, Sellers, Mendheim, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Mitchell, J., dissents.

Wise, J., recuses herself.

MITCHELL, Justice (dissenting).

We are being asked in this petition for certiorari review to allow briefing on several issues related to John Fitzgerald Betton's resentencing.¹ I believe that briefing is warranted with respect to one issue, which is presented in Part IV(A) of Betton's petition. In particular, I would allow briefing on the issue of whether the trial court properly considered and weighed the factors prescribed by this Court in Ex parte Henderson, 144 So. 3d 1262 (Ala. 2013), with focus on whether the trial court correctly applied the potential-for-rehabilitation factor following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016).

1 As has previously been stated:

"[T]his Court's issuance of the writ of certiorari does not indicate any definitive disposition on the merits; rather the writ simply requires the clerk of the appropriate court of appeals, in this case the Court of Criminal Appeals, to transmit the full record in the case to the clerk of this Court, and allows the respondent to file a brief, the petitioner to file a brief in response to the respondent's brief, and the respondent to file a subsequent reply brief."

Nelson v. State, 866 So. 2d 599, 602 n.1 (Ala. 2003) (Harwood, J., dissenting).