The man who pulled the trigger received a life sentence. The man who was outside the store when the shot was fired could soon be put to death by the state of Alabama.
Charles “Sonny” Burton, now 75 years old, awaits execution for his participation in a robbery that took place more than three decades ago at a Talladega AutoZone.
During that August 1991 incident, customer Doug Battle lost his life. Everyone involved in the case agrees on one critical fact: Burton did not fire the fatal shot.
Derrick DeBruce was the gunman who killed Battle. Six individuals participated in the robbery that day, and Burton was among them. However, witness testimony established that Burton had already exited the building when DeBruce pulled the trigger.
Following the crime, courts handed down death sentences to both DeBruce and Burton. Years later, DeBruce’s punishment was reduced to life behind bars.
That change left Burton—a man who never fired a weapon at anyone and gave no orders to kill—as the sole participant still scheduled for execution.
Burton’s legal representative, Matt Schulz, characterized the situation as “an extreme outlier” when compared to other capital punishment cases across the country.
Earlier this year, Alabama’s highest court gave Governor Kay Ivey the authority to schedule Burton’s execution, which would be carried out using nitrogen gas.
Since that ruling, an unusual coalition has emerged calling for mercy—including the murdered man’s own daughter and several individuals who sat on the jury that originally recommended death.
What Happened at the Talladega AutoZone
The fatal robbery unfolded on August 16, 1991. Burton had reached his 40th birthday by then.
Witnesses recalled that Burton made a statement before entering the store, indicating he would “take care of” anyone who created problems inside.
Once the robbery began, DeBruce commanded everyone to get on the ground. Burton carried a firearm and used it to force the store manager toward the back, where he demanded access to the safe.
The situation turned deadly as the criminals prepared to leave. Doug Battle, a 34-year-old who had served in the Army and was raising four children, walked into the store at that moment.
He complied with the robbers’ demands, tossing his wallet aside and lowering himself to the floor. Words were exchanged between Battle and DeBruce.
A teenager named LaJuan McCants, just 16 at the time, provided key testimony about what happened next.
According to McCants, Burton and several other participants had already walked out of the AutoZone when DeBruce fired a bullet into Battle’s back. McCants also testified that Burton questioned DeBruce about the shooting once they were in the vehicle fleeing the scene.
Prosecutors built their case against Burton by emphasizing his pre-robbery statement about handling trouble.
They argued this proved he led the operation and bore equal responsibility for Battle’s death. In closing arguments, one prosecutor declared Burton “just as guilty as Derrick DeBruce, because he’s there to aid and assist him.”
The defense team representing Burton has consistently maintained that evidence only demonstrated their client planned to commit robbery—not that he ever intended for anyone to be harmed or killed.
Murder Victim’s Daughter and Original Jurors Seek Mercy
Perhaps the most striking voice calling for clemency belongs to the person most directly harmed by the crime.
Tori Battle had not yet reached her tenth birthday when her father was gunned down. Now an adult, she has written to Governor Ivey asking her to “consider extending grace to Mr. Burton and granting him clemency.”
Her letter painted a picture of her father’s character. “My father Doug Battle was many things. He was strong, but he valued peace. He did not believe in revenge,” she wrote.
The jurors who decided Burton’s fate in 1992 have also reconsidered their decision in light of subsequent events. The disparity between how the legal system ultimately treated the actual shooter versus the accomplice troubles many of them deeply.
- Most surviving jurors support reconsidering the sentence. Of the eight jurors still living, six have indicated they would not oppose changing Burton’s punishment to something less than death.
- Some jurors actively advocate for clemency. Three members of the original jury have gone further, explicitly requesting that the governor spare Burton’s life. They have stated they never would have recommended execution if they had known the triggerman would eventually receive a lesser sentence.
- One juror spoke publicly about the unfairness. Priscilla Townsend explained in a phone interview that while she continues to support capital punishment for “the worst of the worst,” Burton does not fit that description in her view.
“It’s absolutely not fair. You don’t execute someone who did not pull the trigger,” Townsend stated.
She reflected on how the emotionally charged atmosphere of the trial influenced the jury’s recommendation.
As years have passed and circumstances have changed—particularly DeBruce’s resentencing—Townsend and her fellow jurors have questioned whether their original decision still makes sense.
State Officials Stand Behind Original Sentence
The office of Attorney General Steve Marshall has pushed back against efforts to spare Burton’s life. Officials there point to the lengthy legal process that has repeatedly affirmed both the conviction and the sentence.
“Burton was convicted of capital murder in April 1992 and that the jury unanimously recommended the death penalty. That conviction and sentence have been upheld at every level,” a representative for the attorney general stated.
Yet Schulz, Burton’s attorney, highlighted a telling detail from the state’s own legal filings.
Back in 2015, when prosecutors were fighting to preserve DeBruce’s death sentence, the attorney general’s office acknowledged in court documents that it would create an “arguable unjust situation” if Burton remained on death row while DeBruce did not.
That hypothetical scenario became reality. DeBruce passed away while incarcerated in 2020, having never faced execution.
Legal Framework Allows Execution of Non-Triggermen
While most inmates awaiting execution were convicted of personally taking someone’s life, American law does permit capital punishment for accomplices in certain situations.
Robin M. Maher leads the Death Penalty Information Center as its executive director. She noted that her organization has tracked at least 22 instances in which the United States executed someone who participated in a crime where another person actually committed the killing.
A 1987 Supreme Court decision established that accomplices can face the death penalty if their actions demonstrated “reckless indifference” toward human life, even if they never personally harmed anyone.
According to Maher, this standard has resulted in “arbitrariness among the jurisdictions” in how such cases are handled.
Alabama’s legal requirements add another layer to the debate. Richard S. Jaffe, a lawyer with no connection to Burton’s case, explained that state law demands prosecutors prove an accomplice possessed “particularized intent to kill.”
Burton’s defense attorneys contend that no such proof was ever presented.
Governors rarely intervene in death penalty cases once all appeals have been exhausted. Ivey herself has only granted clemency on one occasion.
That said, Republican governors in other states have recently shown willingness to commute death sentences for accomplices. Just months ago, Oklahoma’s Governor Kevin Stitt took such action in November.
Burton’s Family Describes a Different Man Than Prosecutors Portrayed
Court documents from Burton’s sentencing revealed a childhood marked by violence. His father struggled with alcoholism and subjected him to frequent beatings. Despite enduring that abuse, Burton took on a protective role for his younger siblings, according to his sister, Eddie Mae Ellison.
“He is not perfect, but he is not the person depicted by prosecutors,” Ellison said of her brother.
The man awaiting execution today bears little physical resemblance to the 40-year-old who participated in that 1991 robbery. Burton’s health has deteriorated significantly.
He has grown frail and depends on either a wheelchair or a walker whenever he moves beyond his cell. His age and physical decline have intensified his family’s pleas for the governor to show mercy.
“He did not lay a hand on the man,” Ellison said. “Why do you feel it is necessary to take his life?”
Questions of Justice Remain Unanswered
Burton’s attorney summed up the fundamental problem his client faces in stark terms.
“We hope and pray that Governor Ivey recognizes that this case slipped through the cracks. It would be wrong to execute a man who did not even see the shooting take place, after the state agreed to resentence the shooter to life without parole, and this is simply not the kind of case most people think of when they envision the death penalty being carried out,” Schulz said.
As Burton’s potential execution date approaches, the case has attracted attention from legal observers, criminal justice advocates, and ordinary citizens alike.
The unusual circumstances—a victim’s family member pleading for the defendant’s life, jurors reversing their position, and the actual killer having died in prison after receiving a lighter sentence—raise uncomfortable questions about whether carrying out this execution would truly serve justice.
When You Need Experienced Legal Guidance
Navigating Alabama’s legal system requires knowledgeable counsel who understands the complexities of the law.
Our experienced attorneys here at Baxley Maniscalco are committed to providing aggressive representation for clients facing serious legal matters in personal injury and family law.
We fight to protect the rights of every client we serve. Contact Baxley Maniscalco today to schedule a confidential consultation.
Can't find what you're looking for? Search our site below.
