FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 6, 2011
For More Information, contact:
Joy Patterson (334) 242-7491
Alabama Attorney General
Suzanne Webb (334) 242-7351
Page 1 of 1
AG ANNOUNCES THAT COURT UPHOLDS DEATH SENTENCE OF
MAN CONVICTED OF CAPITAL MURDER IN MARION COUNTY
(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.
ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011
Christopher Dewayne Revis
State of Alabama
Appeal from Marion Circuit Court
On Return to Remand
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,
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.
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
- 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
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
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
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.
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.