Bonds v. Alabama

Background

A person convicted in Alabama asked the nation’s high court to review a decision by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. The person also asked to proceed without paying court fees, and the high court allowed that request. The case was held pending the Court’s decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana and then taken up again.

Reasoning

The high court agreed to hear the matter, vacated the lower court’s judgment, and sent the case back to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana. The Court’s order does not decide the underlying question of whether the person is entitled to any relief; it simply directs the state court to reconsider the case with Montgomery in mind.

Real world impact

State appellate judges in Alabama must reevaluate this conviction and similar cases to determine what effect Montgomery has on them. The order is procedural: it cancels the earlier ruling and sends the case back for more review rather than granting or denying final relief. The outcome could change on remand depending on how the state court applies Montgomery and other state-law rules.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices wrote short concurring notes. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, emphasized that vacating and remanding does not resolve whether the person deserves retroactive relief, whether state-law bars or plea waivers block relief, or whether the sentence is a mandatory life-without-parole term. Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg also noted their agreement with the decision to vacate and remand.