Ex parte Price, CR-96-2093
Citation | 715 So.2d 856 |
Decision Date | 10 October 1997 |
Docket Number | CR-96-2093 |
Parties | Ex parte Walter J. PRICE, Jr. (In re STATE of Alabama v. Walter J. PRICE, Jr.). |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
William N. Clark and Maxwell H. Pulliam, Jr., Birmingham, for petitioner.
John Jeffery Rich and Julian D. Butler, Huntsville, for Judge Joseph L. Battle.
The petitioner, Walter J. Price, Jr., filed this petition for a writ of mandamus after Joseph L. Battle, circuit judge for the Twenty-third Judicial Circuit, denied his motion seeking recusal from his case of all circuit judges in Madison County, his motion to change venue, and his motion for a continuance. In his petition, Price asks us to direct Judge Battle to recuse all circuit judges in Madison County, to transfer venue, and to continue his case. Price, a former attorney in Huntsville who had been appointed as general administrator for the Madison County Probate Court, was indicted on four counts of taking money from estates over which he had been appointed administrator.
Price was indicted on May 9, 1997, and was arrested on June 5, 1997. The case was originally set for trial on August 4, 1997. Price filed a discovery motion and a motion for a continuance on July 18, 1997. On August 4, 1997, Price's case was called for trial. When it was called, the trial court denied the above motions. This petition followed. Price also filed in this Court a motion to stay the proceedings in the circuit court until this Court ruled on his mandamus petition. This Court granted the motion to stay, pending disposition of the mandamus petition.
Before mandamus may issue, four prerequisites must be satisfied. There must be 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.Cr.App.1996).
Although mandamus is the appropriate method to challenge a pre-trial ruling on a motion to recuse, Ex parte Sanders, 659 So.2d 1036 (Ala.Cr.App.1995), it is not available to review a ruling on a motion for a change of venue based on pretrial publicity or a ruling on a motion for a continuance. These issues may be adequately reviewed by direct appeal. Ex parte Spears, 621 So.2d 1255 (Ala.1993). As to those matters, therefore, the petition is denied.
As to Price's contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion for recusal, Canon 3 C(1), Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, states, in pertinent part:
The Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Duncan, 638 So.2d 1332 (Ala.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1007, 115 S.Ct. 528, 130 L.Ed.2d 432 (1994), established the standard to be used to evaluate a motion to recuse. Recusal is necessary if "another person, knowing all of the circumstances, might reasonably question the judge's impartiality." 638 So.2d at 1334.
The Alabama Supreme Court recently in Ex parte Bryant, 682 So.2d 39 (Ala.1996), addressed an identical issue. In that case, Bryant, an attorney and general guardian and conservator for Mobile County, who was also charged with theft, filed a motion seeking the recusal of all the circuit judges in Mobile County. The trial court denied the motion for recusal. After this Court denied his original petition for the writ of mandamus, Bryant filed a petition with the Alabama Supreme Court. The Alabama Supreme Court, in granting the petition for the writ of mandamus, stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boyd v. State
... ... 83-86) ... The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed this court's judgment, Ex parte Boyd, 715 So.2d 852 (Ala.1998), and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari review, Boyd v. Alabama, 525 U.S. 968, 119 S.Ct. 416, 142 ... ...
-
Ex parte Fowler
... ... See Wallace, supra ; Acromag-Viking v. Blalock, 420 So.2d 60 (Ala.1982); affirmed on other grounds, 474 So.2d 91 (Ala.1985) ." ... 516 So.2d at 608-09 ... See also Ex parte Price, 715 So.2d 856 (Ala.Crim.App.1997) ... The United States Supreme Court, when interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 455, stated that provisions similar to our Canon 3.C.(1) and Canon 3.C.(1)(a) are separate provisions that are to be evaluated under the facts presented in each case. We ... ...
-
Seeking a Recusal: Calling the Judge a Lizard Won't Help Your Cause
...a judicial officer whose conduct is now at issue. In two similar actions, Ex parte Bryant, 682 So. 2d 39 (Ala. 1996) and Ex parte Price, 715 So. 2d 856 (Ala. 1997), lawyers were appointed by the circuit courts to hold positions as a guardian and conservator. In both actions, the attorneys w......
-
Responding to a Bar Complaint
...So.2d 39 (Ala. 1996). Prudence dictates that a lawyer must recognize any exposure to criminal charges, and seek guidance. Ex parte Price, 715 So.2d 856 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997). Notably, the fact there may be an ongoing criminal investigation will not automatically stay a bar investigation. (......