Home >

October 6, 2011
For More Information, contact:
Luther Strange
Joy Patterson (334) 242-7491
Alabama Attorney General
Suzanne Webb (334) 242-7351
Page 1 of 1

(MONTGOMERY)–Attorney General Luther Strange announced that the Alabama
Court of Criminal Appeals on Friday upheld the death sentence of Christopher Dewayne
Revis. Revis, 33 of Hamilton, was convicted in November of 2006 of the killing of Jerry
Stidham during the course of a robbery.
Evidence at trial stated that on the evening of February 21, 2005, Christopher Revis,
his brother, Jason Revis, and their uncle Eddie Revis, planned to rob Jerry Stidham by
faking a drug buy. Eddie obtained a .22 caliber rifle and the three drove to the trailer
where Stidham lived by himself. Once there, Christopher Revis went into the trailer and
confirmed that Stidham had drugs available. Telling Stidham that he had to go back
outside to get money, Christopher Revis went out to the car and returned to the trailer with
the rifle. Revis killed Stidham by shooting him several times. Eddie Revis also delivered a
slashing, but non-fatal, wound to Stidham’s throat. The three men took Stidham’s wallet
(containing approximately $1800.00) and a bottle of pills.
The case was prosecuted at trial by Marion County District Attorney John J. Bostick’s
office. Revis was originally convicted for two counts of capital murder during the course of
a robbery and sentenced to death on each count. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
affirmed one of the capital convictions and ordered that the trial court vacate the other
capital conviction because both counts were based on the same facts. The trial court
complied with those instructions.
Revis sought to have his death sentence on the remaining capital conviction reversed
on appeal. The Attorney General’s Capital Litigation Division handled the case during the
appeals process, arguing for the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals to affirm the propriety
of Revis’ death sentence. The Court did so in a decision issued on Friday, September 30. In
its opinion the Court of Criminal Appeals stated that “[a]n independent weighing of the
aggravating circumstance and the mitigating circumstance indicates that death is the proper
sentence,” and that “[t]he sentence of death in this case is neither excessive nor
disproportionate to the penalty imposed in other cases.”
Attorney General Strange commended Assistant Attorney General Richard Anderson
of the Attorney General’s Capital Litigation Division for his successful work in this case.
*For additional information regarding this case, a copy is attached of the memorandum opinion of the
Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.
501 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 (334) 242-7300
www.ago.alabama.gov REL: 09/30/2011
Notice: This opinion i s subjec t to formal revision before publication i n th e advance
sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requeste d to notif y the Reporte r of Decisions ,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
229-0649), of any typographica l or other errors, i n orde r that corrections may be made
before the opinio n i s printe d i n Southern Reporter.
OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011
Christopher Dewayne Revis
State of Alabama
Appeal from Marion Circuit Court
On Return to Remand
JOINER, Judge.1
Christopher (“Chris”) Dewayne Revis was convicted of two
1This case was originally assigned to another member of
thi s Court. I t was reassigned to Judge Joiner on March 1,

  1. CR-06-0454
    counts of capita l murder for th e intentiona l murder of Jerry
    Stidham by shooting him with a .22 caliber rifle during the
    course of committing a first-degre e robbery of money (count I )
    and drugs (count II) . See ß 13A-5-40(a)(2), Ala. Code 1975.
    The jury recommended, by a vote of 11-1, that Revis be
    sentenced to death . The tria l court sentenced Revis to death.
    This Court affirmed one of Revis’s convictions and sentences
    for capital murder for killing Stidham during the commission
    of a robbery. Revis v. State, [Ms. CR-06-0454, Jan. 13, 2011]
    So. 3d (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). This Court, however,
    remanded this case for th e tria l court to vacate one of th e
    convictions and sentences entered against Revis.2
    Specifically , this Court held that “the two counts of murder
    during robbery in the present case charged Revis with
    committing the same offense [and] th e fac t that the sentences
    would have been served concurrently does not obviat e the harm
    resultin g from the unlawfu l conviction. ” Revis, So. 3d a t
    . The tria l court, on return to remand, has complied
    with our instruction and vacated Revis’s conviction for
    capita l murder for intentionall y murdering Stidham during th e
    2We previously remanded this case by order.
    2 CR-06-0454
    course of committing a first-degre e robber y of money (count I)
    and the death sentence associated with that conviction.
    In our opinion on original submission, because we were
    remanding the case for the vacation of one of Revis’s
    convictions and sentences, we pretermitted our statutorily-
    required analysis of the propriet y of Revis’ s death sentence.
    Revis, So. 3d at . Because the trial court has
    complied with this Court’s direction on return to remand and
    has vacated one of Revis’s convictions and sentences for
    murder during a first-degree robbery, in accordance with ß
    13A-5-53, Ala. Code 1975, we must address the propriety of
    Revis’s death sentence. Revis was convicted of murdering
    Jerry Stidham during the course of a first-degree robbery, an
    offense defined as capital by ß 13A-5-40(a)(2), Ala. Code
  2. The record reflects that Revis’s sentence was not
    imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any
    other arbitrary factor. See ß 13A-5-53 (b)(1), Ala. Code

  3. The trial court found the existence of one aggravating
    circumstance–that the murder was committed during a robbery,
    ß 13A-5-49(a)(4), Ala. Code 1975, and that the aggravating
    3 CR-06-0454
    circumstance outweighed the one mitigating circumstance
    argued–that Revis had no significant criminal history, ß
    13A-5-51(1), Ala. Code 1975. We held i n ou r origina l opinion
    of January 13, 2011, tha t the tria l court’s findings as t o the
    statutory aggravating circumstance and statutory mitigating
    circumstance were proper.
    Section 13A-5-53(b)(2), Ala. Code 1975, requires this
    Court to weigh the aggravating circumstances and the
    mitigating circumstances independently to determine the
    propriety of Revis’s sentence of death. Section 13A-5-48,
    Ala. Code 1975, provides :
    “The process described in Sections
    13A-5-46(e)(2), 13A-5-46(e)(3) and Section
    13A-5-47(e) of weighing the aggravating and
    mitigating circumstances to determine the sentence
    shal l not be defined to mean a mere tallying of
    aggravating and mitigating circumstances for th e
    purpose of numerical comparison. Instead, i t shal l
    be defined to mean a process by which circumstances
    relevant to sentence are marshalled [sic] and
    considered i n an organized fashion fo r th e purpose
    of determining whether the proper sentence in view
    of all th e relevan t circumstances in an individual
    case i s lif e imprisonment without parole or death.”
    “The determination of whether the aggravating
    circumstances outweigh the mitigatin g circumstances i s no t a
    numerical one, but instead involves the gravity of the
    4 CR-06-0454
    aggravation as compared to the mitigation.” Ex parte Clisby,
    456 So. 2d 105, 108-09 (Ala. 1984). “[W]hile the existence of
    an aggravating or mitigating circumstance is a fact
    susceptible to proof, the relative weight of each i s not; the
    process of weighing, unlike facts , is not susceptible t o proof
    by either party.” Lawhorn v. State, 581 So. 2d 1159, 1171
    (Ala. Crim. App. 1990). Clearly, the trial court gave the
    mitigating circumstance little weight in light of the
    aggravating circumstance present in thi s case. “The weight to
    be attached to the aggravating and the mitigating evidence is
    strictl y within the discretion of the sentencing authority.”
    Smith v. State, 908 So. 2d 273, 298 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000).
    We agree with the trial court’s findings. An independent
    weighing of the aggravating circumstance and the mitigating
    circumstance indicates that death is the proper sentence.
    As required by ß 13A-5-53 (b)(3), Ala. Code 1975, this
    Court must determine whether Revis’s sentence was
    disproportionate or excessive when compared to penalties
    imposed in similar cases. The sentence of death in this case
    i s neither excessive nor disproportionate to the penalties
    imposed in similar cases, considering the crime and Revis.
    5 CR-06-0454
    See, e.g., Stanley v. State, [Ms. CR-06-2236, April 29, 2011]
    So. 3d , (Ala. Crim . App. 2011); McMillan v.
    State, [Ms. CR-08-1954, Nov. 5, 2010] So. 3d (Ala.
    Crim. App. 2010); Yancey v. State, [Ms. CR-04-1171, Oct. 9,
    2009] So. 3d (Ala. Crim . App. 2009) (opinion on
    return to remand); Floyd v. State, [Ms. CR-05-0935, Aug. 29,
    2008] So. 3d (Ala. Crim . App. 2007) (opinion on
    return to remand); Gamble v. State, 791 So. 2d 409 (Ala. Crim.
    App. 2000); Gaddy v. State, 698 So. 2d 1100 (Ala. Crim. App.
    1995) (all case s involving the offense of murder committed
    during the course of a robbery).
    Having searched the entir e record for any error that may
    have adversely affected Revis’s substantial rights and given
    that the tria l court complied with our remand instruction and
    vacated one of Revis’s convictions and sentences, we now
    affir m the tria l court’s judgment.
    Welch, P.J., and Windom, Kellum, and Burke, JJ., concur.