Ex parte Eubank
Decision Date | 23 May 2003 |
Citation | 871 So.2d 862 |
Parties | Ex parte Robert B. EUBANK. (In re State of Alabama v. Robert B. Eubank). |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Robert B. Eubank, pro se.
William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen., and Stephanie N. Morman, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.
The petitioner, Robert B. Eubank,1 filed this petition for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Gloria Bahakel to recuse herself from presiding over his trial for driving under the influence ("DUI"), or, in the alternative, to dismiss the felony DUI charge against him.2 In September 1999, Eubank was indicted for DUI. In early 2000, the prosecution moved to amend the charge. Eubank was reindicted in August 2002 for felony DUI. Judge Bahakel was assigned to preside over the case. She subsequently filed a complaint with the Alabama State Bar against Eubank, requesting that his license to practice law be suspended because he was impaired and he was a danger to himself and the community. Eubank moved to dismiss the felony DUI charge for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, i.e., because the action was commenced after the expiration of the statutory limitations period. Judge Bahakel denied the motions; this petition followed.
Initially, we must determine if a petition for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate method by which to review Judge Bahakel's rulings in this case. See Ex parte Spears, 621 So.2d 1255 (Ala. 1993). The Alabama Supreme Court recently in State v. Zimlich, 796 So.2d 399 (Ala.2000), held that a mandamus is not the proper vehicle to review a pretrial ruling alleging that a statute of limitations had expired. The Court stated, 796 So.2d at 403. Eubank also challenged the underlying DUI convictions that formed the basis for the felony DUI charge. Our research has revealed no case where this Court or the Supreme Court has reviewed a similar issue by way of a mandamus petition. In fact, in Ex parte Spears, 621 So.2d 1255 (Ala.1993), the Alabama Supreme Court stated:
621 So.2d at 1256-58. Therefore, we will not consider Eubank's allegations concerning the motion to dismiss. However, mandamus is an appropriate vehicle by which to review a trial court's ruling on a motion to recuse. See Ex parte Sanders, 792 So.2d 1087 (Ala.2001); Ex parte Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 776 So.2d 76 (Ala.2000); Crawford v. State, 686 So.2d 196 (Ala. 1996); Ex parte Cotton, 638 So.2d 870 (Ala.1994); Ex parte Melof, 553 So.2d 554 (Ala.1989).
Eubank argues that Judge Bahakel should recuse herself because, he argues, the fact that she filed a complaint against him with the Alabama State Bar shows that she is biased against him. Eubank cites Ex parte Rollins, 495 So.2d 636 (Ala. 1986), in support of this contention. The State asserts that Eubank has failed to show that Judge Bahakel is biased against him and that Rollins is distinguishable from the present case.
Canon 3.C.(1), Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, states:
In Rollins, the Alabama Supreme Court addressed the issue whether a trial judge should recuse himself after the judge filed a complaint against Rollins's attorney with the Alabama State Bar alleging perjury, political vindictiveness, and unfitness to practice law. The Court noted that it appeared that the trial court still had negative feelings against the attorney even though the complaint was filed over two years earlier and the Alabama State Bar had dismissed the complaint. The Court found that Rollins had established that the trial judge was biased and should recuse. The Rollins Court did not specifically address whether the filing of a complaint with the State Bar against an attorney representing a client is sufficient, by itself, to mandate recusal. Neither has our research revealed any other case addressing this issue.
Eubank has attached a copy of the letter Judge Bahakel sent to the Alabama State Bar. The letter states that Eubank continues to drink, that he is impaired, that he is a danger to himself and to the community, and that he should be suspended from practicing law. Eubank is facing charges of felony DUI—he is not the attorney representing a defendant but the defendant himself. Therefore, we believe that the facts of this case raise an even stronger inference of bias than was presented in Rollins.
In order to issue a writ of mandamus a petitioner must establish (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the relief sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) no adequate remedy at law; and (4) the properly invoked jurisdiction of the reviewing court. State v. Williams, 679 So.2d 275 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996).
Based on the circumstances of this case and the Court's holding in Rollins, we believe that Eubank has established the prerequisites for the issuance of this writ. Therefore, this petition is granted to the extent that Judge Bahakel is directed to recuse herself from presiding over Eubank's case. All other relief requested in this petition is denied.
PETITION GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART; WRIT ISSUED.
Although I agree that Eubank's petition should be granted to the extent that Judge Bahakel should recuse herself from presiding over this case, I dissent from the portion of the opinion denying the remainder of Eubank's petition for a writ of mandamus. Specifically, I dissent from this Court's presenting an apparent holding in a footnote, particularly a holding that contravenes previous caselaw from this Court and the Alabama Supreme Court.
The cases cited by the majority in footnote 2 do not stand for the proposition that a defendant cannot seek review by way of a petition of a writ of mandamus of an order consolidating criminal charges against him. Rather, those cases concern the consolidation of civil cases. Additionally, those cases do not foreclose review by mandamus in cases where a party to an action complains regarding the consolidation of cases against him. To the contrary, those cases allow mandamus review and address the proper standard of review; they stand for the proposition that, absent an arbitrary abuse of judicial power, mandamus will not lie.3See also Ex parte Mullins, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
EX PARTE WOODARD
...more than a restyled motion in limine, or that Woodard has a clear legal right to have the trial court do so. See Ex parte Eubank, 871 So.2d 862 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (issuance of a writ of mandamus requires 1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the relief sought; 2) an imperative duty ......
-
Ex Parte Atchley
...which to review a circuit court's ruling on a motion to recuse. See Ex parte Adams, 910 So.2d 827 (Ala.Crim.App.2005); Ex parte Eubank, 871 So.2d 862 (Ala.Crim.App.2003). In Atchley's affidavit attached to the motion to recuse, Atchley states the "Judge Jenifer C. Holt represented me as a d......
-
Ex Parte Vandiver
...for violating a disciplinary rule of conduct and was placed on 45 days of disciplinary segregation. He cites Ex parte Eubank, 871 So.2d 862 (Ala. Crim.App.2003), in support of his The State asserts that the circuit court correctly denied Vandiver's motion to recuse because there was no show......
-
Seeking a Recusal: Calling the Judge a Lizard Won't Help Your Cause
...in Ex parte Eubank, based upon the judge's opinion of the ability of the defendant's attorney to provide competent legal service. 871 So. 2d 862 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). The judge sent a letter to the Alabama State Bar expressing that the attorney was impaired due to his drinking, should be ......