State v. Blanton

Citations: 821 So. 2d 986; 2001 Ala. LEXIS 417Docket: 1001462

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; November 15, 2001; Alabama; State Supreme Court

Dissent SummaryDissent Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Justice Harwood dissents from the decision to quash a writ, arguing that while the procedural insufficiency of the petition is valid, the Court should have issued an opinion discussing this issue under its rule-making authority. He contends that an opinion was necessary to address the denial of USNewsLink's petition for a writ of mandamus by the Court of Criminal Appeals, which he believes lacked jurisdiction based on precedent from Ex parte Smith. 

The case arose during the trial of State of Alabama v. Thomas E. Blanton, Jr., where Judith Haney, owner of USNewsLink, sought transcripts of evidence but was denied by the trial court. USNewsLink's subsequent petition to the Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of mandamus was denied on the merits, with dissent from judges who questioned the Court's jurisdiction. USNewsLink then sought certiorari from this Court, claiming a violation of First Amendment rights as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court granted the petition to consider two issues: compliance with procedural rules and the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Harwood believes the petition should have been granted based on constitutional rule-making authority and that the Court should have examined jurisdictional issues, which can be addressed at any time. He notes that USNewsLink’s petition was filed without a rehearing application, but emphasizes that Rule 21(e) allows for direct review by the Supreme Court of decisions concerning extraordinary writs without requiring a rehearing.

An original petition for extraordinary relief denied by the court of appeals may be reviewed by the supreme court through a similar petition seeking a writ directed to the trial judge. Conversely, if the court of appeals grants such a petition, the supreme court can be approached with a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, along with the relevant court of appeals proceedings. This review must occur within fourteen days of the grant or denial of the writ. Rehearing in the court of appeals can be sought regardless of whether an opinion has been issued, but if pursued, subsequent supreme court review will require a petition for writ of certiorari, unless the party withdraws the rehearing application within the fourteen-day window and files a petition under the original rule instead. Rule 21(e), Ala.R.App. P., allows for supreme court review of court of appeals actions on extraordinary writs via either of these routes. Historically, an application for rehearing was mandated for certiorari review, except for cases involving original petitions for a writ of mandamus. The 2000 amendment to Rule 39 reinforces that a rehearing application is still necessary for certiorari review, apart from the specific scenario outlined in Rule 21(e). The interpretation of Rule 39(c)(1)(B) clarifies that while a rehearing is typically required for certiorari review of extraordinary writ decisions, it is not needed if the first option under Rule 21(e) is utilized.

Under Rule 21(e), a petition for a writ of certiorari necessitates an application for rehearing as a prerequisite, as outlined in Rule 21(e)(8). This requirement means that petitions similar to USNewsLink's are likely to be denied by the Court without comment. A petition for a writ of certiorari regarding an extraordinary writ from the Court of Criminal Appeals is procedurally inadequate if the petitioner has not properly requested rehearing.

The Court of Criminal Appeals' jurisdiction is also questioned, particularly in light of Judge Shaw's dissent regarding the denial of a writ of mandamus. The dissent references Ex parte Smith, which indicates that the Court of Criminal Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider the mandamus petition. In Smith, an indigent defendant sought discovery materials, which the trial court ordered produced without cost to the defendant. The State's subsequent petition for a writ of mandamus to the Court of Criminal Appeals, seeking to overturn the trial court's decision, was granted; however, the defendant's petition to this Court for a writ of mandamus to vacate that order was ultimately deemed jurisdictionally improper. The Court analyzed this situation by looking at precedents, including Ex parte Galanos, which involved the review process for indigent-defense attorney fees, illustrating complexities in procedural compliance and jurisdiction in such cases.

The Court of Criminal Appeals granted Bush's petition, determining that Judge Galanos lacked jurisdiction to consider fee claims for cases not tried in his court. Subsequently, judges from the Mobile Circuit Court, who were respondents to Bush's petition, filed a de novo mandamus petition asking for the Court of Criminal Appeals to vacate its writ. They argued that Bush had not demonstrated the necessary criteria for the writ, claiming the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in granting it. In response, the Court held that the Court of Criminal Appeals did not possess jurisdiction to hear Bush's petition, emphasizing that proper jurisdiction was absent for mandamus relief. 

According to Alabama's constitutional provisions and statutory law, the Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over specific criminal matters and can issue writs related only to those within its appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, Bush’s mandamus petition did not correctly invoke the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court of Civil Appeals holds exclusive appellate jurisdiction over civil cases with amounts not exceeding $50,000 and extraordinary writs arising from such cases. 

The Court concluded that the State's petition to the Court of Criminal Appeals was fundamentally flawed due to the lack of properly invoked jurisdiction, thus entitling the defendant to a writ of mandamus. The Court directed the Court of Criminal Appeals to vacate the writ issued on the State's petition. The underlying issue for the mandamus, concerning the discovery of materials unrelated to a criminal proceeding, was deemed not to fall within the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals, leading to the recommendation to reverse the judgment against USNewsLink and dismiss its mandamus petition. The case also highlighted procedural issues regarding the submission of facts and the implications of misreading appellate rules, particularly regarding certiorari review.