Ex parte St. John

• Decision Date: 01 June 2001
• Citation: 805 So.2d 684
• Parties: Ex parte Michael E. ST. JOHN. (Re State v. Michael E. St. John).
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

805 So.2d 684

Ex parte Michael E. ST. JOHN.

(Re State v. Michael E. St. John).

1992005.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 1, 2001.

Michael E. St. John, pro se.

Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and James B. Prude, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.

JOHNSTONE, Justice.

Michael E. St. John, an inmate at the Limestone Correctional Facility, Capshaw, Alabama, petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial judge and the Court of Criminal Appeals to grant the petitioner's motions to proceed in forma pauperis in the trial court on a Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition and on appeal of the trial judge's denial of that Rule 32 petition. We grant a writ for only partial relief, as the principal aspects of the petitioner's claims for relief are moot.

On July 26, 1999, the petitioner filed a Rule 32 petition challenging his 1984 conviction for breaking and entering a vehicle and his sentence of 25 years' imprisonment. The petitioner included with his Rule 32 petition a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a supporting affidavit. On December 20, 1999, without ruling on the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the trial judge denied the Rule 32 petition and ordered the Department of Corrections (DOC) to withdraw $114 from the petitioner's account to pay the court costs. On January 31, 2000, the petitioner appealed the denial of his Rule 32 petition to the Court of Criminal Appeals and filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and a supporting affidavit. On March 17, 2000, the Court of Criminal Appeals entered an order dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground that the trial judge's denial of the Rule 32 petition was a nullity that would not support an appeal. St. John v. State (No. CR-99-0843), 805 So.2d 800 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (table). Citing Goldsmith v. State, 709 So.2d 1352 (Ala.Crim.App.1997), the Court of Criminal Appeals reasoned that, because the trial judge had failed to rule on the petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to rule on the Rule 32 petition.

We note in passing that the Goldsmith rule will justify dismissing an appeal of a denial or a dismissal of a Rule 32 petition for lack of jurisdiction in the trial court to enter the ruling only (a) if the record on appeal affirmatively shows that the petitioner did not either pay the trial court filing fee or obtain leave to proceed in forma pauperis before the trial court as required by Rule 32.6(a), Ala. R.Crim. P., or (b) if, before the trial court, the State has challenged a failure by the petitioner to pay the trial court filing fee or to obtain the leave, or the trial court has dismissed the petition on such ground, and either the State or the petitioner has raised such failure as an issue on appeal. Unless such failure is such an issue on appeal, no statute or rule requires the record on appeal to contain proof that the petitioner has paid the trial court filing fee or that the trial judge has granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis before the trial court.

In dismissing the appeal of the trial judge's denial of the Rule 32 petition, the Court of Criminal Appeals noted in its order:

"[T]he appellant is entitled to a ruling by the trial court on the in forma pauperis declaration that accompanied his Rule 32 petition. Should the trial court deny the appellant's in forma pauperis declaration, mandamus, not appeal, is the proper remedy to seek review of the trial court's action."

On May 17, 2000, the petitioner petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of mandamus directing the trial judge "to grant the petitioner Michael E. St. John the right to proceed in forma pauperis status on appeal." (Emphasis added.) The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed that petition without opinion on June 22, 2000. The Court of Criminal Appeals never specifically ordered the trial judge to rule on the petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis before the trial court on the Rule 32 petition.

On July 6, 2000, the petitioner petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus in part either directing the trial judge to grant the petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis or directing the Court of Criminal Appeals to explain why it dismissed his petition for a writ of mandamus when the trial judge had not yet complied with the March 17, 2000, suggestion by the Court of Criminal Appeals that he rule on the petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis before the trial court. On September 11, 2000, this Court ordered the respondents—the trial judge and the State—to respond to the petitioner's claims with answers and briefs. On September 25, 2000, the trial judge granted the petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the trial court and then denied the petitioner's Rule 32 petition.

To the extent that the petitioner seeks relief requiring the trial judge to grant the petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the trial court on the Rule 32 petition, the petition for a writ of mandamus is moot, see Ex parte Talladega Little League, Inc., 556 So.2d 386 (Ala. 1990),

because the trial judge has by now granted this motion. In eventually granting this motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, however, the trial...