 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Williams6/4/1999
on for mandamus or prohibition differs significantly. Tipton, 770 S.W.2d at 241.
To obtain relief in the nature of a writ of prohibition, a petitioner must show that: (1) the lower court is proceeding or is about to proceed outside of its jurisdiction and there is no adequate remedy by appeal, or (2) the lower court is about to act incorrectly, although within its jurisdiction, and there exists no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise and great inJustice and irreparable injury would result. The issuance of the writ is only under exceptional circumstances in order to prevent a miscarriage of Justice.
Reasoning laterally, we are also of the opinion that "in aid of its appellate jurisdiction," as found in KRS 23A.080(2), the circuit court inherently has the power to issue such writs, as the same was determined in Francis v. Taylor, Ky., 593 S.W.2d 514 (1980), for the Court of Appeals when it issues a writ of mandamus. Id. at 241-242 (Citations omitted) (emphasis added).
We are mindful of the oft-cited language employed by our Supreme Court in Eaton to the effect that an order of prohibition "is not available to control the discretionary act of a trial court within its jurisdiction." Eaton, 562 S.W.2d at 638. (Footnote omitted). However, we believe Tipton clearly identifies the two cases as distinguishable in that an interlocutory method of appeal is available from circuit court, whereas an appeal is available only in the instance of a final ruling from district court. However, where the petitioner can establish either the district court lacks jurisdiction, or even though vested with jurisdiction, the district court's ruling will result in great inJustice or irreparable harm and there is no other avenue of appeal, the circuit court will entertain an original action for mandamus or prohibition.
In accordance with the above analysis, we believe the circuit court incorrectly dismissed the Commonwealth's petition for a writ of prohibition. It is unquestionable the district court retains jurisdiction over DUI matters under KRS Chapter 189A. Consequently, on remand the circuit court shall determine whether the Commonwealth has shown the lower court's action, in suppressing the evidence, will result in great inJustice and irreparable injury. As was recognized in Tipton, this form of interlocutory review is available from district court rulings " therwise, the Commonwealth may be forced to trial without vital evidence or with some other significant prejudice to its case . . . ." Tipton, 770 S.W.2d at 241. We neither intend nor imply that in every instance where the loss of evidence forces dismissal of the Commonwealth's case the result amounts to irreparable harm justifying the issuance of a writ. Rather, " he issuance of the writ is only under exceptional circumstances in order to prevent a miscarriage of Justice." Id. Should the circuit court conclude the district court's ruling accords with the laws of this Commonwealth, the decision should not be disturbed.
According to the principle set forth in Tipton, as discussed herein, the order of the Union Circuit Court dismissing the Commonwealth's petition for writ of prohibition is reversed, and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ALL CONCUR.
Page 1 2 3 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|