Ex parte Galanos
| Decision Date | 17 March 2000 |
| Citation | 796 So.2d 390 |
| Parties | Ex parte Chris N. GALANOS, Ferrill D. McRae, Braxton L. Kittrell, Jr., Edward B. McDermott, Robert G. Kendall, Joseph S. Johnston, and Robert E. L. Key. (Re Ex parte Peter Austin Bush (Re State of Alabama v. Carlos Balams; State of Alabama v. Kevin Cappell; State of Alabama v. Carol Dimarzio; State of Alabama v. Lissette A. Henderson; and State of Alabama v. Terry Rawls)). |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
W. Lloyd Copeland of Clark, Deen & Copeland, P.C., Mobile, as special asst. atty. gen., for petitioner.
Peter Austin Bush, respondent, pro se.
Alexander Bunin, Mobile, amicus curiae Alabama Criminal Defense Lawyers Ass'n.
Several circuit court judges, either active judges of the Mobile Circuit Court or retired judges assigned to try criminal cases in the Mobile Circuit Court, petitioned for a writ of mandamus directing the Court of Criminal Appeals to vacate its judgment in Ex parte Bush, 796 So.2d 383 (Ala.Crim.App.1998). We grant the petition.
Section 15-12-21, Ala.Code 1975, sets out the procedure for appointing counsel for indigent criminal defendants and for compensating the lawyers for their services as appointed counsel. Section 15-12-3 provides that, within each judicial circuit in Alabama, the presiding judge is to administer that circuit's indigent-defense system "pursuant to rule of the Supreme Court," and that "[c]ircuit courts may adopt rules, not in conflict with rules of the Supreme Court, to effectuate a system of indigent defense."
These petitioners adopted a "system of indigent defense" for Mobile County, including a schedule for reviewing attorney-fee declarations in criminal indigent-defense cases. According to the schedule, the responsibility for reviewing all fee declarations "rotates" among the circuit judges on an approximately annual basis. Thus, in Mobile County, indigent-defense fee declarations are submitted to the currently designated reviewing judge and to a committee made up of five lawyers who practice criminal law in Mobile County. The designated judge reviews the committee's recommendations, independently reviews each fee declaration, then approves a fee, which is submitted to the State comptroller for payment.
The respondent, Peter Austin Bush, is a Mobile lawyer who accepts appointments to defend indigent criminal defendants. Judge Chris N. Galanos, a judge of the Mobile Circuit Court and one of the petitioners here,1 reduced Bush's attorney-fee declarations in 11 indigent-defense cases. Bush filed with the Court of Criminal Appeals a petition for a writ of mandamus, challenging the legality of Mobile County's indigent-defense system and challenging Judge Galanos's reductions of Bush's fee declarations.
In response to Bush's mandamus petition, the Court of Criminal Appeals held, in Ex parte Bush, supra,
that § 15-12-21 requires that attorney-fee declarations be submitted to the judge who heard the case, and that Judge Galanos did not have jurisdiction to consider fee declarations in cases that were not tried before him. The Court of Criminal Appeals also held that the Mobile Circuit Court's indigent-defense system conflicts with § 15-12-21 and results in "arbitrary and capricious treatment" of attorney-fee declarations by allowing a judge who did not try a case to review the attorney-fee declaration in that case.
The Court of Criminal Appeals ordered Bush to submit supplemental fee declarations, and it ordered the judges who presided over the corresponding trials to review those declarations. The Court of Criminal Appeals also ordered that the Mobile Circuit Court revise its method for reviewing attorney-fee declarations in indigent-defense cases so that the judge who hears the case also reviews the fee declaration, so as to comply with § 15-12-21.
Seven judges who heard criminal cases in the Mobile Circuit Court filed a de novo petition in this Court (see Rule 21(e)(1), Ala. R.App. P.), arguing that Bush's mandamus petition to the Court of Criminal Appeals was improper because, they contended, Bush had another adequate remedy available, an action pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act (§ 6-6-220 et seq., Ala.Code 1975). Further, the circuit judges argue, a declaratory-judgment proceeding would have provided a record for appellate review, which is absent in these mandamus proceedings. We agree with these contentions.
"Mandamus [is] an extraordinary remedy that will not be issued unless the [petitioner] has a clear, undisputable right to the relief sought...." Ex parte Mobile Fixture & Equip. Co., 630 So.2d 358, 360 (Ala.1993). Mandamus is a remedy "employed to see that justice is done, but the writ of mandamus shall not issue if there is a doubt as to its necessity or propriety." Ex parte Franks, 679 So.2d 219, 220 (Ala. 1996). Indeed, we have held:
Ex parte Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 707 So.2d 229, 233 (Ala.1997) (citations omitted), quoting Ex parte Holland, 692 So.2d 811, 814 (Ala.1997).
The lack of another adequate remedy is a prerequisite to the issuance of a writ of mandamus. Ex parte Martin, 703 So.2d 883, 884 (Ala.1996). Bush does not deny that a declaratory-judgment proceeding constitutes an available adequate remedy, but argues that had he sought a declaratory judgment and won, the likelihood...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hutchinson v. State
...reassigned to Judge Joiner on March 1, 2011. 2. In support of this Court's decision to transfer the appeal, the order cited Ex parte Galanos, 796 So.2d 390 (Ala.2000), and Ex parte McNabb, 879 So.2d 1166 (Ala.2003). In its opinion transferring the appeal back to this Court, however, the Ala......
-
State v. Isbell
...from criminal cases — Ex parte McNabb, 879 So.2d 1166 (Ala.2003) ; Ex parte Smith, 794 So.2d 1089 (Ala.2001) ; and Ex parte Galanos, 796 So.2d 390 (Ala. 2000) — the Court of Criminal Appeals reasoned that it lacked jurisdiction over the petition because Isbell's right to a fair trial was ......
-
Smith v. Houston
...over the appeal. Thompson I, 794 So.2d at 447. This Court further held that, based on the Supreme Court's decision in Ex parte Galanos, 796 So.2d 390, 393 (Ala.2000)—in which that Court held that “after litigation in the circuit court, a judgment in a declaratory-judgment action may be appe......
-
Waite v. Waite
...court, and that court transferred the appeal to this court on the basis that this court has appellate jurisdiction. But see Ex parte Galanos, 796 So.2d 390 (Ala.2000); Evers v. Link Enters., Inc., 386 So.2d 1177 2. In Yerger v. Cox, supra, the children of a decedent sought to have a divorce......