from Mobile Circuit Court. (CC-12-3873).
Appellant: Lisa Elaine Bumpers, Mobile.
Appellee: Luther Strange, Atty. Gen., and Audrey K. Jordan,
Asst. Atty. Gen.
Presiding Judge. Welch, Kellum, Burke, and Joiner, JJ.,
WINDOM, Presiding Judge.
Amison appeals his convictions for two counts of felony
murder, see § 13A-6-2(a)(3), Ala. Code 1975, and his
resulting sentences of 32 years in prison. Amison's
sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
November 22, 2011, Amison and his accomplice, Broderick
Brown, robbed and killed Sam Richardson in Richardson's
barbershop. Amison was indicted for two counts of
capital murder for killing Sam Richardson during the course
of a robbery and during the course of a burglary. See §
§ 13A-5-40(a)(2) and (a)(4), Ala. Code 1975. On both
counts, the jury found Amison guilty of the lesser-included
offense of felony murder. The circuit court adjudicated
Amison guilty of two counts of felony-murder and sentenced
him to two concurrent terms of 32 years in prison.
appeal, both Amison and the State argue that Amison's two
felony-murder convictions for killing Richardson violate the
Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States. This Court agrees.
Carlisle v. State, 963 So.2d 170 (Ala.Crim.App. 2006),
this Court explained:
" In Ex parte Rice, 766 So.2d 143 (Ala. 1999),
the Alabama Supreme Court held that § 13A-6-2(a)(3),
Ala. Code 1975, creates a single offense, even though it
provides alternative methods of proving the offense. The
supreme court also held that double jeopardy principles
prohibit multiple convictions and multiple sentences for
felony-murder if the convictions and sentences arise from a
killing. In this case, the appellant was convicted of one
count of felony-murder during a robbery and one count of
felony-murder during the commission of a felony that was
clearly dangerous to human life -- discharging a firearm into
an occupied vehicle. Both convictions arose from the murder
of Speigner. Therefore, he could not properly be convicted of
and sentenced for two counts of felony-murder. The trial
court sentenced the appellant to serve concurrent terms of
life in prison. However, in Rice, the supreme court held:
" 'We note that merely ordering that Rice's
sentences run concurrently is not a constitutionally
acceptable option. The Supreme Court stated in Ball v.
United States, 470 U.S. 856, 864-65, 105 S.Ct. 1668, 84
L.Ed.2d 740 (1985):
" '" The remedy of ordering one of the
sentences to be served concurrently with the other cannot be
squared with Congress' intention. One of the convictions,
as well as its concurrent sentence, is unauthorized
punishment for a separate offense. See Missouri v.