 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ex parte Leeds11/15/2002
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
The City of Leeds (hereinafter "the City") filed this petition for a writ of mandamus requesting us to direct Judge David N. Lichtenstein to rescind his order reinstating John Bino Barefield's de novo appeal from the Leeds Municipal Court.
In March 2000, Barefield was convicted in municipal court of driving under the influence . He appealed to the circuit court for a trial de novo, and the case was assigned to Judge Michael McCormick. In October 2000, on the date that Barefield's case was set for trial, he failed to appear for the trial docket. Judge McCormick dismissed the case, and it was returned to the municipal court. In April 2002, approximately 18 months later, Barefield sent a letter to Judge McCormick requesting that he set aside his order of dismissal and reinstate Barefield's de novo appeal. At this point, the case had been assigned to Judge Lichtenstein, a district court judge sitting as a circuit judge. Judge Lichtenstein denied the request, stating that he no longer had jurisdiction of the case. In May 2002, Barefield filed a motion requesting that Judge Lichtenstein reconsider his order; he argued that the case was not called for trial on the date it was dismissed, and that, therefore, Judge McCormick had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal. After a hearing, Judge Lichtenstein reinstated Barefield's appeal and set Barefield's case for trial on November 18, 2002. The City then filed this mandamus petition.
This case is correctly before this Court by way of an extraordinary petition. The City cannot appeal Judge Lichtenstein's ruling. The only way the City can obtain review is by filing a petition for extraordinary relief under Rule 21, Ala.R.App.P. Ex parte City of Mongtomery, 721 So. 2d 261 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998). Although the City styled its petition as a petition for a writ of mandamus, we have treated it as a petition for a writ of prohibition. A writ of prohibition is the appropriate vehicle to challenge a lower court's actions on the basis that its actions exceeded its jurisdiction. See Ex parte City of Tuskegee, 447 So. 2d 713 (Ala. 1984).
The City argues that Judge Lichtenstein acted outside of his jurisdiction and in contradiction to Rule 30.5(b), Ala.R.Crim.P., when he reinstated Barefield's de novo appeal 18 months after it had been dismissed. Barefield has responded by stating that the case was never actually called for trial on the date it was dismissed and that Judge McCormick had no jurisdiction to prematurely dismiss the appeal.
Rule 30.5(b), Ala.R.Crim.P., states, in part:
"Where the appellant, without sufficient excuse, does not appear for trial de novo when called for trial, the court may dismiss the appeal, order the bond forfeited, and remand the case to the court appealed from for enforcement of the lower court's judgment. Upon the motion of the appellant, for good cause shown, the court may set the order of dismissal aside and reinstate the appeal on such terms as the circuit court may prescribe. Any such motion must be filed within thirty (30) days of the entry of the order of dismissal. Failure of the trial court to rule within thirty (30) days of the entry of the order of dismissal on the motion seeking reinstatement of the appeal shall constitute a denial of the motion as of the thirtieth day. The clerk of the circuit court shall send a copy of the order of dismissal of the appeal to the appropriate trial court clerk no later than thirty (30) days from the date on which the appeal is dismissed. The entry of a judgment of default on the appeal bond shall comply with the procedures set forth in § 15-13-81, [Ala. Code 1975,] and a forfeiture may be entered by the circuit c
Page 1 2 3 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|