Brett Richard Yeiter v. State of Alabama

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
• Decided: June 27, 2025
• Docket: CR-180599
• Status: Published

Opinion

Rel: June 27, 2025

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) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals OCTOBER TERM, 2024-2025 _________________________

CR-18-0599 _________________________

Brett Richard Yeiter

v.

State of Alabama

Appeal from Escambia Circuit Court (CC-15-42)

On Return to Remand

MINOR, Judge.

In 2021, we reversed Brett Richard Yeiter's 2019 capital-murder

conviction and death sentence, holding that the Escambia Circuit Court

had erred in admitting over Yeiter's objection evidence during the guilt

phase about Yeiter's prior convictions and incarceration and that the CR-18-0599

admission of that evidence was not harmless error. Yeiter v. State, [Ms.

CR-18-0599, Dec. 17, 2021] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2021). After

the Alabama Supreme Court reversed this Court's judgment, Yeiter v.

State, [Ms. SC-2022-0417, Sept. 2, 2022] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2022), we

considered the remaining guilt-phase issues Yeiter had preserved for

appellate review, finding no merit in them. Yeiter v. State, [Ms. CR-18-

0599, June 28, 2024] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2024) (opinion on

remand from the Alabama Supreme Court). But because Yeiter had been

charged before the amendment to Alabama's capital-sentencing scheme

making the jury's decision binding, 1 we held that the trial court had erred

in treating the jury's 10-2 vote for a death sentence as binding rather

than as a recommendation. We thus vacated the trial court's order

sentencing Yeiter to death and remanded the matter for the trial court to

apply the correct sentencing scheme and impose a new sentence. On

remand, the trial court complied with our instructions and sentenced

Yeiter to life without the possibility of parole.

Despite having the chance to do so, Yeiter did not file a brief on

return to remand. See Rule 28A, Ala. R. App. P. We thus presume that,

1See Act No. 2017-131, Ala. Acts 2017.

2 CR-18-0599

based on his new sentence, Yeiter no longer challenges any part of the

penalty phase. 2 Cf. Culver v. State, 583 So. 2d 1356, 1357 (Ala. Crim.

App. 1991).

In its brief on return to remand, the State correctly notes that,

because the trial court sentenced Yeiter to life without the possibility of

parole, the plain-error issues Yeiter raised on initial submission are no

longer reviewable. 3 See, e.g., Hicks v. State, 378 So. 3d 1071, 1130 (Ala.

Crim. App. 2019) ("Plain-error review does not apply to convictions in

which the death penalty has not been imposed."). Because no issues

2In our opinion on remand from the Alabama Supreme Court, the

only penalty-phase issue we addressed besides holding that the judge has the final sentencing determination was whether the trial court had erred in not allowing Jewell Phillips ("Jewell")—who was married to the victim Paul Phillips ("Phillips") for more than 50 years—to testify at the penalty phase that, in her opinion, Phillips would not have wanted Yeiter sentenced to death. We held that "Alabama law prohibited Jewell's testimony about what punishment she thought Phillips would want Yeiter to receive. Thus, the trial court did not err in disallowing that testimony." ___ So. 3d at ___.

On remand, Yeiter called Jewell to testify at the sentencing hearing before the trial judge. Jewell testified without objection that, in her opinion, Phillips would not have wanted Yeiter sentenced to death.

3The issues Yeiter raised on appeal but did not raise in the trial

court include these issues as designated in his brief on original submission: II.B, V, VIII, IX, XI, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, and XX. 3 CR-18-0599

remain for this Court to review, we now affirm the trial court's judgment

of conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED.

Windom, P.J., and Kellum, Cole, and Anderson, JJ., concur.