Ex parte Melton
Decision Date | 07 June 2002 |
Citation | 837 So.2d 819 |
Parties | Ex parte Vince MELTON. (In re State of Alabama v. Vincent Lee Melton). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Vince Melton, pro se.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and J. Thomas Leverette, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.
Vince Melton petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to grant his request to proceed in forma pauperis on a Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief. The petition is denied.
Melton was convicted of attempted murder on October 27, 1987; on December 4, 1987, the trial court sentenced him to 20 years' imprisonment. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Melton's conviction in an unpublished memorandum. Melton v. State, 531 So.2d 69 (Ala.Crim.App.1988)(table). Melton subsequently filed two Rule 32 petitions—on June 11, 1997, and November 20, 2000—that were denied by the trial court; those denials were affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals. Melton v. State, (No. CR-96-1935) 725 So.2d 1090 (Ala.Crim.App.1997)(table); Melton v. State, (No. CR-00-0772, March 23, 2001) 821 So.2d 1045 (Ala.Crim.App.2001)(table).
On October 15, 2001, Melton filed a third Rule 32 petition. Melton asserts in his petition for a writ of mandamus that his Rule 32 petition was "accompanied with an [sic] motion for order granting Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis supported with an [sic] Rule 32(IFP) Declaration Form." Attached to Melton's petition for a writ of a mandamus is the first page of an in forma pauperis declaration. The declaration is stamped as "denied" by the trial court on November 15, 2001. Also appearing on the page is a "note" from Melton that states: "This is all that was forwarded to me by the Court to be used as Evidence." Melton filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Court of Criminal Appeals; that court denied the petition by an order issued on January 9, 2002, citing Ex parte Eckles, 736 So.2d 595 (Ala.1999). On January 15, 2002, Melton filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court. See Rule 21(e), Ala. R.App. P.
Melton argues that the trial court's denial of his request to proceed in forma pauperis is contrary to this Court's holding in Ex parte Hurth, 764 So.2d 1272 (Ala.2000). The standard of review applicable to a petition for a writ of mandamus is settled.
Ex parte Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 720 So.2d 893, 894 (Ala.1998). Further, this Court has stated that "`[M]andamus, and not appeal, is the proper method by which to compel the circuit court to proceed on an in forma pauperis petition.'" Ex parte Beavers, 779 So.2d 1223, 1224 (Ala.2000)(quoting Goldsmith v. State, 709 So.2d 1352, 1353 (Ala.Crim.App.1997)).
Also attached to Melton's petition for a writ of mandamus is a copy of the Court of Criminal Appeals' order denying the petition for a writ of mandamus that he had filed with that court. Rule 21(a), Ala. R.App. P., states, in pertinent part:
"The petition [for a writ of mandamus] shall contain a statement of the facts necessary to an understanding of the issues presented by the application; a statement of the issues presented and of the relief sought; a statement of the reasons why the writ should issue, with citations to the authorities and the statutes relied on; and copies of any order or opinion or parts of the record that would be essential to an understanding of the matters set forth in the petition."
(Emphasis added.) In its answer to Melton's petition, the State argues that Melton has failed to establish a clear legal right to the relief he seeks because he failed to attach supporting documents to his petition, i.e., a complete in forma pauperis declaration and a certificate executed by an authorized official that reflects his prison-account balance. See Ex parte Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., supra. In reply, Melton argues that this Court's holding in Ex parte Hurth, supra, is sufficient to establish that he has a clear legal right to the vacation of the trial court's denial of his request to proceed in forma pauperis.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cook v. Bentley (Ex parte Cook)
...(c); § 12 –2–7(1), Ala.Code 1975. Thus, we turn now to the merits of the petitioners' arguments.Standard of Review“In Ex parte Melton, 837 So.2d 819, 820–21 (Ala.2002), this Court discussed the standard of review applicable to a petition for the writ of mandamus:“ ‘ “ A writ of mandamus is ......
- Ex Parte Stan Simpson
-
Harris v. Tuscaloosa Hous. Auth..
...indigent status. However, those orders can be reviewed by this court only by a petition for the writ of mandamus. See Ex parte Melton, 837 So.2d 819, 821 (Ala.2002); accord Goldsmith v. State, 709 So.2d 1352, 1353 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). This court has discretion to treat an appeal as a petiti......
-
Ex Parte Ward
...___ (Ala.Crim.App. 2006) (table). Ward now petitions this Court seeking the same relief. II. Standard of Review In Ex parte Melton, 837 So.2d 819, 820-21 (Ala.2002), this Court discussed the standard of review applicable to a petition for the writ of "`A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary......