Ex parte Pritchett
Decision Date | 12 April 2002 |
Parties | Ex parte Robert L. PRITCHETT. (In re State of Alabama v. Robert L. Pritchett). |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Robert L. Pritchett, pro se.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Daniel W. Madison, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.
The petitioner, Robert L. Pritchett, an inmate at Limestone Correctional Facility in Capshaw, petitions for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Gloria Bahakel to grant his request to proceed in forma pauperis for purposes of filing a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P. In 1985, Pritchett pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree. In January 2002, Pritchett filed his fifth postconviction petition in the Jefferson Circuit Court, the court in which he was convicted. See Rule 32.5. Pritchett's petition was accompanied by a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Judge Bahakel denied the request, stating that the court was not going Pritchett then filed this mandamus petition.
Pritchett argues in his petition that Judge Bahakel erred in denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis; that Judge Bahakel should recuse herself from the case because she wrongfully had denied his request for indigency; and that we should direct Judge Bahakel to vacate his conviction. We allowed the State the opportunity to respond to Pritchett's allegations. The State has responded, stating that this Court should grant Pritchett's petition in part and remand this case to the circuit court for that court to determine Pritchett's indigency status.
The Alabama Supreme Court, in Ex parte Beavers, 779 So.2d 1223 (Ala.2000), stated:
This case is therefore remanded to the circuit court for that court to consider Pritchett's in forma pauperis request based solely on Pritchett's ability to pay the filing fee.2 See Ex parte Coleman, 728 So.2d 703, 708 (Ala.Crim.App.1998). As we stated in Coleman, the "trial court is not without power to impose restrictions similar to those suggested in Procup [v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069 (11th Cir. 1986)]." Any restrictions placed on Pritchett's future filings "should not be so overbroad as to deny [him] `meaningful access to the courts.'" Coleman, 728 So.2d at 708, quoting White v. State, 695 So.2d 241, 242 (Ala.Crim.App.1996).
For the reasons stated above, this petition is due to be, and is hereby, granted, to the extent that Judge Bahakel is directed to reconsider Pritchett's in forma pauperis request.3 See Beavers.
PETITION GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART; WRIT...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Bishop, No. K1/2008-0087A (R.I. Super 2/12/2009)
...170 (Del. 1980); People v. Mounts, 784 P.2d 792, 796 (1990); Smith v. State, 832 So.2d 92, 98 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001), cert. denied 832 So.2d 100 (Ala. 2002). Additionally, the facts in DeWeese are easily distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In DeWeese, the defendant was not i......
-
Ex Parte Ward
...the power to protect itself from abusive litigants. Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1072-73 (11th Cir.1986); Ex parte Pritchett, 832 So.2d 100, 102 (Ala.Crim.App.2002) ("the `trial court is not without power to impose restrictions'" on abusive litigants). However, "`[a]lthough trial co......
-
Ex parte Melton
...indigent before issuing the writ of mandamus to the trial court. See Ex parte Dozier, 827 So.2d 774 (Ala.2002); Ex parte Pritchett, 832 So.2d 100 (Ala. Crim.App.2002); Ex parte Ferrell, 819 So.2d 83 (Ala.Crim.App.2001). Therefore, it is necessary that this Court be presented with some docum......
-
Ex parte Amerson
...then the trial court is authorized to grant Amerson's in forma pauperis request. We cite the court to our holding in Ex parte Pritchett, 832 So.2d 100 (Ala. Crim.App.2002), where we stated that the trial court should rule on the in forma pauperis request based solely on the individual's abi......