`
`
`
` Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016)
`
` SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring
`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`CHRISTOPHER EUGENE BROOKS v. ALABAMA
`ON APPLICATION FOR STAY AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF
`
`
`CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
`
`
`No. 15–7786 (15A755) (Decided January 21, 2016)]
`
`
`
`
`The application for stay of execution of sentence of death
`
`
`presented to JUSTICE THOMAS and by him referred to
`the Court is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari is
`denied.
` JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG
`
`joins, concurring in the denial of certiorari.
`This Court’s opinion upholding Alabama’s capital sen-
`
`tencing scheme was based on Hildwin v. Florida, 490 U. S.
`
`
`638 (1989) (per curiam), and Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.
`S. 447 (1984), two decisions we recently overruled in Hurst
`
`v. Florida, 577 U. S. ___ (2016). See Harris v. Alabama,
`513 U. S. 504 (1995). I nonetheless vote to deny certiorari
`in this particular case because I believe procedural obsta-
`cles would have prevented us from granting relief.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
` BROOKS v. ALABAMA
`
`BREYER, J., dissenting
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUSTICE BREYER, dissenting from denial of application
`
`for stay of execution and petition for certiorari.
`
`Christopher Eugene Brooks was sentenced to death in
`accordance with Alabama’s procedures, which allow a jury
`to render an “advisory verdict” that “is not binding on the
`court.” Ala. Code §13A–5–47(e) (2006). For the reasons
`
`explained in my opinions concurring in the judgment in
`
`
`Hurst v. Florida, ante, at 1, and Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S.
`
`584, 613–619 (2002), and my dissenting opinion in Schriro
`v. Summerlin, 542 U. S. 348, 358–366 (2004), I dissent
`from the order of the Court to deny the application for stay
`of execution and the petition for a writ of certiorari.
`
`Moreover, we have recognized that Alabama’s sentenc-
`ing scheme is “much like” and “based on Florida’s sentenc-
`ing scheme.” Harris v. Alabama, 513 U. S. 504, 508
`(1995). Florida’s scheme is unconstitutional. See Hurst,
`ante, at 1 (BREYER, J., concurring in judgment). The
`
`unfairness inherent in treating this case differently from
`others which used similarly unconstitutional procedures
`only underscores the need to reconsider the validity of
`capital punishment under the Eighth Amendment. See
` Glossip v. Gross, 576 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (BREYER, J.,
`
`
`dissenting) (slip op., at 1–2). I respectfully dissent.