Alabama Senate approves limited resentencing pathway for certain long‑serving inmates after deadlock, narrow final passage

The Alabama State Senate passed Senate Bill 156 on final reconsideration on March 18, after an initial tie vote earlier in the day caused the measure to fail.

Senate Bill 156, sponsored by Senator Barfoot, would allow people who were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole under earlier habitual‑offender laws to file a petition asking the sentencing court to resentence them under present‑day sentencing provisions. The bill limits eligibility to people who were sentenced prior to February (the bill text cites the relevant sentencing-era cutoff), who have served at least 25 years, and whose underlying offense is not a homicide, attempted murder, or another offense listed in the bill that involved physical injury.

Senator Barfoot explained the bill’s purpose on the floor: “What SB156 does is allows an opportunity for those individuals who were in prison, serving sentences of life without the possibility of parole to petition the court, to be resentenced,” and he emphasized that the process would involve notice to victims and the district attorney, who could be heard at any hearing.

The bill’s floor debate focused on procedural safeguards and potential burdens on courts. Several senators pressed for details on how petitions would be filed, whether courts would appoint counsel, how victims would be notified and heard, and whether the process could trigger fresh appeals or additional litigation. Senator Smitherman, Senator Sessions, and others asked whether resentencing would automatically mean release, and Barfoot repeatedly stressed that a resentencing hearing could result in no change, a new term with parole eligibility, or other sentencing choices at the judge’s discretion.

During debate the Senate adopted a floor amendment offered by Barfoot that added specific victim‑notification language and other clarifications; that amendment passed by roll call (28 ayes, 2 nays). Later, the chamber voted on the bill itself and the first vote ended in a tie—16 ayes and 16 nays—causing the measure to fail. Senators then moved to reconsider; the motion to reconsider passed and the Senate took a second final vote, passing the bill 17 ayes to 8 nays.

Senators repeatedly noted the bill would not produce automatic releases. As Barfoot put it, the measure “does not result in the automatic release of even one incarcerated person, but does allow for a narrow list of aging individuals the possibility to have their cases reviewed.” Supporters cited outside letters from groups including the Alabama Policy Institute and other organizations described on the floor as endorsing a narrowly tailored “second‑chance” pathway. Opponents expressed concern about court workload, the potential for re‑litigation of decades‑old cases, and whether eligible people would realistically be notified and able to file motions without appointed counsel.

The bill includes a five‑year sunset for the petition window and sets eligibility by specific criminal‑code references in the enacted text. The final version also retains a role for the district attorney and for victims to be heard in the resentencing proceeding.

Votes at a glance on SB156: the Barfoot floor amendment was adopted (28–2). The first floor vote on the bill failed by tie (16–16). The Senate then voted to reconsider and passed SB156 on final passage (17–8).

The bill was reported out of committee and advanced to final passage by roll calls recorded on the Senate floor March 18, 2025. Further procedural steps are required before any resentencing petitions could be filed in trial courts.

Ending: The bill’s sponsors and opponents both emphasized limits in scope and the judge‑centric nature of the remedy; advocates said it provides a narrowly tailored review process for those serving very old habitual‑offender life sentences, while critics warned of additional costs and possible legal complications.