Ex parte Carter
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | HARWOOD, Justice. |
| Citation | 807 So.2d 534 |
| Decision Date | 29 June 2001 |
| Parties | Ex parte Richard O. CARTER. (Re State v. Richard O. Carter). |
807 So.2d 534
Ex parte Richard O. CARTER.(Re State v. Richard O. Carter)
1001027.
Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 29, 2001.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Kristi Deason, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.
HARWOOD, Justice.
Richard O. Carter, presently an inmate in Bullock County Correctional Facility, petitions for a writ of mandamus directing Judge William W. Cardwell to: (1) grant him permission to proceed in forma pauperis on his Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition, and (2) rescind his order compelling the Department of Corrections to withhold $144 from Carter's prison account to pay the filing fee for his Rule 32 petition. The mandamus petition is granted in part and denied in part.
On November 7, 2000, Carter attempted to file a Rule 32 petition with the Etowah County Circuit Court, but the petition was instead sent to the Etowah County district attorney's office. The Rule 32 petition did not contain a declaration of intent to proceed in forma pauperis. On December 15, 2000, the State filed a motion to dismiss Carter's Rule 32 petition. Although the record indicates that the petition had not yet been filed, on December 20, 2000, the trial court issued an order purporting to dismiss Carter's Rule 32 petition, in reliance on Rule 32.6(b) and 32.7(d), Ala. R.Crim. P., because it contained bare allegations and because it did not contain a clear and specific statement of facts to support his claims. The circuit court also found Carter's claims to be procedurally barred, under Rule 32.2(c), Ala. R.Crim. P., because, the court concluded, Carter could have raised his claims at trial or on appeal, but had not done so. In addition, the circuit court taxed Carter for the costs of the filing fee, because his petition did not include a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and he had not paid the filing fee required for a Rule 32 petition.
At some point, not specified in any of the materials before this Court, the State became aware of the fact that Carter's original Rule 32 petition had been sent directly to the district attorney's office, and had not been filed with the circuit court. The State then forwarded a copy of the petition to the circuit court, and it was stamped "filed" on January 5, 2001. On January 9, 2001, Carter filed an amended Rule 32 petition; that petition also failed to include a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On January 16, 2001, the circuit clerk's office sent Carter a letter notifying him that his Rule 32 petition did not contain a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and that such a motion was required in order to avoid paying a filing fee.
On January 30, 2001, Carter filed a joint notice of appeal and motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and also filed that date a motion for the circuit court to reconsider its dismissal of his Rule 32 petition. On February 1, 2001, the circuit court denied Carter's motion to reconsider. Carter filed the required motion to proceed in forma pauperis on February 5, 2001, but the motion was not signed. On February 8, 2001, the circuit court denied Carter's motion to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
27001 P'ship v. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., 1091191
...Serv. Stations, Inc., 628 So. 2d 501, 503 (Ala. 1993); see also Ex parte Ziglar, 669 So. 2d 133, 134 (Ala. 1995).' Ex parte Carter, [807 So. 2d 534,] 536 [(Ala. 2001)]."Ex parte McWilliams, 812 So. 2d 318, 321 (Ala. 2001).Page 12 "Subject to certain narrow exceptions . . . , we ha......
-
27001 P'ship v. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (Ex parte Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.), 1091191 and 1091206.
...United Serv. Stations, Inc., 628 So.2d 501, 503 (Ala.1993); see also Ex parte Ziglar, 669 So.2d 133, 134 (Ala.1995).’ Ex parte Carter, [807 So.2d 534,] 536 [ (Ala.2001) ].”Ex parte McWilliams, 812 So.2d 318, 321 (Ala.2001). [78 So.3d 966] “Subject to certain narrow exceptions ..., we have h......
-
Smith v. State, CR-03-2146.
...an order granting leave to the petitioner to proceed in forma pauperis, the clerk shall file the petition...." In Ex parte Carter, 807 So.2d 534 (Ala.2001), the Alabama Supreme Court, citing the language in the second paragraph of Rule 32.6(a), held that the failure to collect the fili......
-
P.B. Surf, Ltd. v. Savage (Ex parte Alamo Title Co.), 1111541
...Serv. Stations, Inc., 628 So. 2d 501, 503 (Ala. 1993); see also Ex parte Ziglar, 669 So. 2d 133, 134 (Ala. 1995)." Ex parte Carter, [807 So. 2d 534,] 536 [ (Ala. 2001) ].'"Ex parte McWilliams, 812 So. 2d 318, 321 (Ala. 2001)."Ex parte Bufkin, 936 So. 2d 1042, 1044 (Ala. 2006)......
-
27001 P'ship v. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., 1091191
...Serv. Stations, Inc., 628 So. 2d 501, 503 (Ala. 1993); see also Ex parte Ziglar, 669 So. 2d 133, 134 (Ala. 1995).' Ex parte Carter, [807 So. 2d 534,] 536 [(Ala. 2001)]."Ex parte McWilliams, 812 So. 2d 318, 321 (Ala. 2001).Page 12 "Subject to certain narrow exceptions . . . , we have held th......
-
27001 P'ship v. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (Ex parte Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.), 1091191 and 1091206.
...United Serv. Stations, Inc., 628 So.2d 501, 503 (Ala.1993); see also Ex parte Ziglar, 669 So.2d 133, 134 (Ala.1995).’ Ex parte Carter, [807 So.2d 534,] 536 [ (Ala.2001) ].”Ex parte McWilliams, 812 So.2d 318, 321 (Ala.2001). [78 So.3d 966] “Subject to certain narrow exceptions ..., we have h......
-
Smith v. State, CR-03-2146.
...or an order granting leave to the petitioner to proceed in forma pauperis, the clerk shall file the petition...." In Ex parte Carter, 807 So.2d 534 (Ala.2001), the Alabama Supreme Court, citing the language in the second paragraph of Rule 32.6(a), held that the failure to collect the filing......
-
P.B. Surf, Ltd. v. Savage (Ex parte Alamo Title Co.), 1111541
...Serv. Stations, Inc., 628 So. 2d 501, 503 (Ala. 1993); see also Ex parte Ziglar, 669 So. 2d 133, 134 (Ala. 1995)." Ex parte Carter, [807 So. 2d 534,] 536 [ (Ala. 2001) ].'"Ex parte McWilliams, 812 So. 2d 318, 321 (Ala. 2001)."Ex parte Bufkin, 936 So. 2d 1042, 1044 (Ala. 2006). "'An appellat......