Ex parte Moody
Decision Date | 24 March 1995 |
Citation | 658 So.2d 446 |
Parties | Ex parte Walter Leroy MOODY, Jr. (In re State of Alabama v. Walter Leroy Moody, Jr.). 1931125. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Walter Leroy Moody, Jr., pro se.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., Steve Willoughby, and Sandra J. Stewart, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.
Walter Leroy Moody is charged with capital murder. His court-appointed counsel sought funds to pay expenses, e.g., to pay experts and to pay for paralegal services. The trial court issued ex parte orders directing the comptroller of the State of Alabama to immediately pay to Moody's appointed counsel moneys for attorney fees, expenses, and fees for experts. The comptroller refused, maintaining that Ala.Code 1975, § 15-12-21, provides that such funds are to be paid only after the conclusion of the trial. The State petitioned for a writ of prohibition, requesting that the Court of Criminal Appeals quash all ex parte orders of the trial court directing the comptroller to immediately pay to Moody's court-appointed counsel moneys for the payment of, among other things, attorney fees, expenses and fees for experts, compensation for paralegals and other assistants, and expenses for office space. In the petition for the writ of prohibition, the State contended that the trial court's orders improperly directed the comptroller to engage in actions contravening the comptroller's prescribed authority under § 15-12-21, because, the State argued, § 15-12-21 authorizes the comptroller to pay attorney fees and reimburse other expenses reasonably incurred by counsel for an indigent defendant only after the conclusion of the defendant's trial or after some other judgment disposing of the case. The Court of Criminal Appeals, by an unpublished order, granted the writ of prohibition, stating as follows:
Moody's application for rehearing was overruled, without opinion. Thereafter, through his court-appointed counsel, Moody petitioned for a writ of certiorari, maintaining that "[t]he writ of prohibition, which ordered the trial court to set aside its ex parte orders directing the Comptroller for the State of Alabama to immediately provide funds for expenses and expert assistance violates [Moody's] Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights under the United States Constitution." 1 We granted the petition, to further consider Moody's constitutional challenge.
However, before this Court granted the petition for certiorari review, the trial court allowed Moody's court-appointed counsel to withdraw and allowed Moody to proceed pro se. No further claim has been made by Moody's former court-appointed counsel; therefore, the issue whether Moody's court-appointed counsel is entitled to interim payments for attorney fees, expenses, and fees for experts is moot.
Notwithstanding, we note that in the State's supplemental brief in opposition to the petition for the writ of certiorari and in the reply brief to the State's supplemental brief in opposition to the petition for the writ of certiorari that Moody filed pro se, it was brought to the Court's attention that the former attorney general for the State of Alabama and Moody's court-appointed counsel had jointly stipulated to the 2 The trial court ordered the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moody v. State
... ... "Plain error" has been defined as error "`so obvious that the failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings.'" Ex parte Womack, 435 So.2d 766, 769 (Ala.1983), quoting United States v. Chaney, 662 F.2d 1148, 1152 (5th Cir.1981) ... "To rise to the level of plain error, the claimed error must not only seriously affect a defendant's `substantial rights,' but it must also have an unfair prejudicial impact on the ... ...
- Moody v. Thomas
-
Ex parte Moody
...the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We granted the petition to consider Moody's claims. Ex parte Moody, 658 So.2d 446 (Ala.1995). Immediately before we granted certiorari review, the trial court allowed Moody's appointed counsel to withdraw and allowed Moo......
- State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Hannig