Ex parte Jimmy Williams, Jr.

Annotate this Case

The United States Supreme Court vacated the Alabama Supreme Court's earlier judgment in Ex parte Williams, 183 So. 3d 220 (Ala. 2015). Jimmy Williams, Jr., was convicted of murder made capital because it was committed during a robbery in the first degree; the offense was committed when Williams was 15 years old. The trial court sentenced Williams to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, the only possible sentence and one that was mandatory. In June 2013, Williams petitioned the Montgomery Circuit Court for a new sentencing hearing, asserting that his life-without-the possibility-of-parole sentence was unconstitutional and unlawful in light of Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012). The circuit court, the Court of Criminal Appeals, and this Court disagreed, each holding that Williams was not entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the rule in Miller did not apply retroactively to cases such as Williams's, which were final when Miller was decided. Williams petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari review. While Williams's petition for certiorari review was pending, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016)., which clarified its holding in Miller, stating that "Miller announced a substantive rule that is retroactive in cases on collateral review." The Alabama Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remanded this case directly to the circuit court for proceedings consistent with Miller and Montgomery.

Download PDF

REL: 08/25/2017 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 2290649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA SPECIAL TERM, 2017 ____________________ 1131160 ____________________ Ex parte Jimmy Williams, Jr. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Jimmy Williams, Jr. v. State of Alabama) (Montgomery Circuit Court, CC-98-2385.60; Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-12-1862) On Remand from the United States Supreme Court 1 1 The United States Supreme Court's order remanding this case was issued on March 7, 2016; this Court was not notified of the remand until June 1, 2017. 1131160 STUART, Chief Justice. The United States Supreme Court has vacated this Court's earlier judgment in this case, see Ex parte Williams, 183 So. 3d 220 (Ala. 2015), affirming the judgment of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, Williams v. State, 183 So. 3d 198 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014), and has remanded the case for our further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016). Williams v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 1365 (2016). Jimmy Williams, Jr., was convicted of murder made capital because it was committed during a robbery in the first degree, see § 13A-5-40(a)(2), Ala. Code 1975; committed when Williams was 15 years old. sentenced Williams to life the offense was The trial court imprisonment without the possibility of parole -- the only possible sentence and one that was mandatory. In June 2013, Williams petitioned the Montgomery Circuit Court, pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., for a new sentencing hearing, asserting possibility-of-parole unlawful in light of sentence the that was United 2 his life-without-the- unconstitutional States Supreme and Court's 1131160 decision in Miller v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012). In Miller, the Supreme Court held that a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a juvenile defendant violates the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In his Rule 32 petition, Williams reasoned that, because he was a juvenile at the time he committed the offense and because his sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole was mandatory, his sentence was unconstitutional and illegal and he was entitled to a new sentencing hearing. The circuit court, the Court of Criminal Appeals, and this Court disagreed, each holding that Williams was not entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the rule in Miller did not apply retroactively to cases such as Williams's, which were final when Miller was decided. See Ex parte Williams, 183 So. 3d at 230-31; Williams v. State, 183 So. 3d at 218; and the Montgomery Circuit Court's order dismissing Williams's Rule 32 petition, Williams v. State, CC-1998-2385.60 (July 22, 2013). Williams petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari review of this Court's decision. 3 1131160 After this Court decided Ex parte Williams and while Williams's petition for certiorari review was pending in that Court, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Montgomery, which clarified its holding in Miller, stating that "Miller announced a substantive rule that is retroactive in cases on collateral review." 577 U.S. at ___, 136 S.Ct. at 732. The United States Supreme Court, in light of its decision in Montgomery, then granted Williams's petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated this Court's judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration. Upon receiving notice of the Supreme Court's order, this Court ordered the parties to submit briefs addressing the impact of Montgomery on Williams's case. Williams and the State have filed a joint brief agreeing that, in light of the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Miller and Montgomery, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirming the circuit court's dismissal of Williams's Rule 32 petition must be vacated and the case ultimately proceedings. remanded to the circuit court for further Given the United States Supreme Court's holding 4 1131160 in Montgomery that the rule of Miller applies retroactively to cases on collateral review, Williams is entitled to a new sentencing hearing. Because of this Court's inadvertent delay in addressing the United States Supreme Court's remand order, clarification in Montgomery that the rule of law in the Miller applies retroactively to cases on collateral review, and the parties' agreement that Williams is entitled to the relief sought in his Rule 32 petition –- i.e., a new sentencing hearing -- we vacate the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand this case directly to the circuit court for proceedings consistent with Miller and Montgomery. JUDGMENT VACATED AND CASE REMANDED. Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Shaw, Main, Wise, Bryan, and Sellers, JJ., concur. 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.