New Hearing Denied For Northport Man Serving Time For Solicitation, Traveling To Meet Minor

TUSCALOOSA, AL — The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals has denied a request for a new hearing and upheld the dismissal of a post-conviction petition filed by a Northport man convicted of electronic solicitation of a child and traveling to meet a child for an unlawful sex act.

Click here to subscribe to our free daily newsletter and breaking news alerts.

As Patch previously reported, Billy H. Jones was among 14 men arrested in November 2020 as part of an undercover operation by the West Alabama Human Trafficking Task Force.

He was ultimately found guilty of traveling to meet a minor for an unlawful sex act and electronic solicitation of a child.

Alabama Department of Corrections records show Jones was sentenced to seven years in prison and has been serving his sentence at the Bibb County Correctional Facility since November 2022.

In a memorandum decision released March 20, the appellate court affirmed a lower court’s ruling denying relief to Billy H. Jones, finding that his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were insufficiently pleaded.

The appeallate court on April 10 then overruled his request for a new hearing.

Court records show Jones previously filed a Rule 32 petition in August 2024, alleging his trial attorney failed to properly represent him at multiple stages of the case.

Among his claims, Jones argued his attorney did not seek an independent review of cellphone data, failed to adequately prepare for trial, and discouraged him from pursuing certain legal strategies.

Jones also claimed he was denied a public trial because family members were allegedly told they could not attend proceedings.

The Tuscaloosa Circuit Court dismissed the petition in September 2025 without a hearing and denied a motion to reconsider later that month, prompting Jones to appeal.

In its ruling, the appellate court said Jones failed to provide specific facts supporting his allegations, noting that Rule 32 petitions require detailed claims demonstrating both deficient performance by counsel and resulting prejudice.

“Jones offered no more than bare assertions that his counsel was ineffective,” the court wrote, adding that he did not explain what further investigation would have revealed or how it would have changed the outcome of his case.

The court also rejected Jones’ claim that he was denied a public trial, stating there was no evidence the courtroom was ever ordered closed to the public.

What's more, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals found no error in the lower court’s decision to dismiss the petition without waiting for a response from the state, citing precedent allowing summary dismissal when claims lack merit on their face.

Ultimately, the appellate panel ruled the circuit court acted within its discretion.

Have a news tip or suggestion on how I can improve Tuscaloosa Patch? Maybe you're interested in having your business become one of the latest sponsors for Tuscaloosa Patch? Email all inquiries to me at ryan.phillips@patch.com