Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; June 28, 2002; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Tony Lee Smith appeals the circuit court's denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus, which sought to compel the district court to rule on his in forma pauperis declaration associated with his Rule 32 petition. Smith initially filed this declaration on October 30, 2000, along with his Rule 32 petition in the Calhoun County district court. The court dismissed the Rule 32 petition on February 28, 2001, without addressing the in forma pauperis declaration, citing a two-year limitations period. Smith subsequently filed a notice of appeal, and on March 10, 2001, submitted a second in forma pauperis declaration indicating he had $3.17 in his account. This appeal was dismissed on March 29, 2001, because the district court lacked jurisdiction due to the unapproved in forma pauperis declaration. Smith filed a second Rule 32 petition in June 2001, which was also denied based on the limitations period. He then petitioned for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the district court should have ruled on his indigency status before dismissing his petitions. The district court later denied his requests to be declared indigent. The appellate court dismissed Smith's initial mandamus petition on procedural grounds and later transferred a second mandamus petition to the circuit court, which dismissed it based on prior proceedings. Ultimately, the appellate court reversed the circuit court's decision, recognizing Smith's indigent status, as evidenced by the balance in his prison account.
The circuit court denied Smith's mandamus petition while improperly considering the merits of his Rule 32 petition, which it found to be procedurally barred. This approach is incorrect because, without the payment of the required filing fee under § 12-19-70, Ala.Code 1975, or an approved request to proceed in forma pauperis, the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction for postconviction petitions, as established in Ex parte McWilliams. Consequently, the district court's orders denying Smith’s postconviction petitions are rendered void. The circuit court is instructed to vacate its order denying Smith’s October mandamus petition and to evaluate his in forma pauperis request solely based on his ability to pay the filing fee, as outlined in Ex parte Pritchett. The ruling is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Smith, convicted on January 15, 1997, did not file a direct appeal, and the circuit court has overarching authority over district, municipal, and probate courts per § 12-11-30(4), Ala.Code 1975. Notably, the circuit court had previously granted Smith's motion to appeal in forma pauperis.
