Baker v. State
Docket: CR-02-1758
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; October 30, 2003; Alabama; State Appellate Court
On May 14, 2003, Donald Earl Baker submitted his fourth Rule 32 petition along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. The circuit court denied the petition on June 7, 2003, without ruling on Baker’s in forma pauperis request or assessing a filing fee. This triggered an appeal. The court referenced Goldsmith v. State, where a similar lack of ruling on an in forma pauperis request led to the dismissal of an appeal, deeming the lower court's order a nullity. The Alabama Supreme Court clarified that an appeal could be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction if the petitioner did not pay the filing fee or obtain in forma pauperis status, provided this was raised during the appeal. Additionally, in Ex parte McWilliams, an appeal was dismissed because the circuit court had not addressed the in forma pauperis request. The Alabama Supreme Court emphasized the requirement for the circuit court to collect the docket fee unless a verified statement of substantial hardship is approved. The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed McWilliams's appeal regarding the Escambia Circuit Court's denial of his post-conviction petition, citing the circuit court's lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court determined that jurisdiction could only be established if McWilliams either paid the required docket fee or was granted in forma pauperis status, as stipulated by Ala.Code 1975, § 12-19-70. Without this, the circuit court's order was deemed void. The court remanded the case with instructions for the circuit court to clarify whether McWilliams had paid the fee or been granted in forma pauperis status, requiring a response within 42 days. In a related matter involving Baker, the circuit court acknowledged Baker's indigence but did not find a record of in forma pauperis status being granted prior to denying his petition. Consequently, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to deny Baker's petition, rendering the denial void and necessitating the dismissal of his appeal. The court underscored that Baker's original petition remains active, pending a ruling on his in forma pauperis request, which the circuit court was instructed to address first. Baker could seek a writ of mandamus if the circuit court fails to act on either petition.