 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ex parte Ryals9/21/2001
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
The petitioner, Timothy L. Ryals, a Mobile County sheriff deputy, filed this petition for a writ of mandamus directing Judge James C. Wood to dismiss the four-count indictment against him. Ryals was indicted by the Mobile County January 2001 grand jury for four counts of violating § 13A-9-3, Ala. Code 1975, by falsely certifying that he had served summonses and complaints when, in fact, he had not. Ryals moved to dismiss the indictment based on double jeopardy-grounds because he had already been punished by his employer , the Sheriff of Mobile County, with suspension from his employment and the loss of use of a county-owned vehicle. He moved for a jury trial on the issue. See Rule 15.4(b), Ala.R.Crim.P. Judge Woods denied the motion for a jury trial and denied the motion to dismiss. Ryals then moved that Judge Woods stay the case so that he could file a mandamus petition in this Court. Judge Woods granted the motion to stay. This petition followed.
Initially, we note that this case is correctly before this Court by way of a mandamus petition. As we stated in Ex parte K.H., 700 So. 2d 1201, 1202 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997):
"The Alabama Supreme Court addressed this issue in Ex parte Ziglar, 669 So. 2d 133 (Ala. 1995), where the Court, departing from the long-established practice of not reviewing double jeopardy issues by way of mandamus, stated:
"`We are satisfied that a criminal defendant with a double jeopardy defense should not be foreclosed from pretrial correction of a trial judge's erroneous denial of a plea of former jeopardy. Therefore, the appellate courts of this State will review double jeopardy claims properly presented by petitions for the writ of mandamus. Rule 21(e), Ala.R.App.P. This procedure will adequately protect the interest of a defendant, as emphasized in Abney [v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977)], so as to avoid the personal strain, public embarrassment, and expense of a subsequent criminal trial.' "669 So. 2d at 135."
Ryals argues that Judge Woods erred in denying his request for a jury trial on his plea of double jeopardy. He contends that the issue whether his 25-day suspension from his job and the his loss of use of a county-owned vehicle for that same period was equivalent to criminal punishment was a question for a jury to resolve.
Ryals relies on the case of Ex parte Adams, 669 So. 2d 128 (Ala. 1995), for his argument that he is entitled to a jury trial on the issue presented here. In Adams, the question presented was whether the prosecutor intentionally caused a mistrial so that a subsequent retrial was barred on double-jeopardy grounds. "Adams has raised factual, not legal, questions about whether the prosecutor acted improperly and intentionally to provoke the first mistrial." 669 So. 2d at 132. The question of the prosecutor's intent was a question of fact, not a question of law. The situation presented in this cause is more analogous to the situation presented in Story v. State, 435 So. 2d 1360 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982), rev'd on other grounds, 435 So. 2d 1365 (Ala. 1983). The questions presented in Story were "whether a conviction for trafficking in marijuana will bar a subsequent prosecution for possession of methaqualone when both charges arose from the same circumstances" and "whether a mistrial because of a deadlocked jury will bar a subsequent prosecution for the same offense." 435 So. 2d at 1364. The Story court stated:
"An accused is entitled to a jury trial on the issues of fact raised by the plea and the issue of former jeopardy should be submitted for the jury's determination before submission of the issue of guilt. Kilpatrick v
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|