Ex parte Thigpen, 7 Div. 900

Decision Date10 August 1987
Docket Number7 Div. 900
Citation513 So.2d 101
PartiesEx parte Morris THIGPEN, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections. (In re State of Alabama v. John Wayne Fleming).
CourtAlabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Harry A. Lyles, Gen. Counsel, Alabama Dept. of Corrections, Montgomery, for petitioner.

Robert O. Posey, Asst. Dist. Atty., Columbiana, for respondent.

BOWEN, Presiding Judge.

This is a petition for writ of mandamus.

Federal prisoner John Wayne Fleming was being held in the Clay County Jail on a criminal indictment awaiting trial.He is represented by appointed counsel in that criminal case.

Clay County Circuit JudgeJohn E. Rochester ordered Fleming transferred to the St. Clair Correctional Facility in order to allow the petitioner access to a law library so that he could prepare for his federal civil lawsuit against the Sheriff of Clay County and prepare for his criminal trial in which he had been formally appointed as his own co-counsel.The St. Clair Correctional Facility is under the authority and operation of the Alabama Department of Corrections.

The Alabama Department of Corrections filed this petition for writ of mandamus against Judge Rochester, claiming that a "circuit Judge has no jurisdiction to order a pretrial detainee/prisoner to be incarcerated in the Alabama Department of Corrections."Judge Rochester's response was that a prisoner has a constitutional right of access to the courts which includes access to a law library.That right cannot be abridged by a narrow construction of the statutes involved.

A circuit judge may, under certain conditions, order a county prisoner transferred to a jail in another county.Alabama Code 1975, § 14-6-6, provides:

"In all criminal cases, either before or after conviction, and in cases of contempt, if it is shown to the court, judge or committing magistrate that the jail of the proper county is insecure or insufficient for the safekeeping of the prisoner or that there is no jail in the county, the commitment must be to the nearest sufficient jail and the reason of such change must be entered on the minutes of the court, or stated in the warrant or endorsed thereon and signed by the magistrate.The jailer of the county to which the commitment is made must receive and confine the prisoner on such commitment or a certified copy of such order."(Emphasis added.)

Section 14-6-7 provides:

"If the jail of any county is destroyed, or becomes insufficient or unsafe, or any epidemic dangerous to life is prevalent in the vicinity or there be danger of rescue or lawless violence to any prisoner, any circuit court judge may, on the application of the sheriff and proof of the fact, direct the removal of any prisoner or prisoners to the nearest sufficient jail in any other county; and it is the duty of such judge, in such case, to make an endorsement on the order or process of commitment, stating the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 cases
  • McMillian v. Johnson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • January 17, 1995
    ...after the transfers to Death Row took place, and still nothing was ever done to correct the situation. Nothing in the evidence now before the court explains the reason for the difference in treatment of the pretrial detainee involved in Ex parte Thigpen, and McMillian and 12 In his affidavit, Myers described what it felt like to be on Death Row at the time of Ritter's execution: What was the most frightening thing of all was to go through the execution that took place that summer.Department of Corrections facility in Atmore, Alabama. The D.O.C. Defendants received McMillian and Myers into D.O.C. custody despite the fact that Judge Key had no authority under Alabama law to order the transfers, Ex parte Thigpen, 513 So.2d 101 (Ala.Cr.App.1987),11 and despite the fact that it was against D.O.C. policy to house pretrial detainees. (Shinbaum Depo. p. 25.) McMillian and Myers were then placed on Death Row at Holman. At least two of the D.O.C. Defendants could not remember(Shinbaum Depo. p. 25.) McMillian and Myers were then placed on Death Row at Holman. At least two of the D.O.C. Defendants could not remember a single pretrial detainee, other than McMillian and Myers, that had been held on Death Row. (Thigpen Depo. at pp. 16-18; Johnson Depo. p. On July 7, 1987, shortly before McMillian and Myers were transferred to Holman and placed on Death Row, the Alabama Supreme Court scheduled the execution of Death Row prisoner Wayne Eugene Ritter for August...
  • Hunt v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • February 11, 1994
    ...L.Ed.2d 1023 (1988). "While prison officials must provide prisoners with direct legal assistance or access to a law library, they are not required to provide both, so long as the constitutional requirement of 'meaningful access' is met." Ex parte Thigpen, 513 So.2d 101, 102 (Ala.Cr.App.1987). We find no error in this The appellant complains of numerous alleged errors in the prosecutor's comments and the presentation of certain evidence during the guilt phase of his trial concerning...
  • Hunt v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • August 26, 2005
    ..."`While prison officials must provide prisoners with direct legal assistance or access to a law library, they are not required to provide both, so long as the constitutional requirement of "meaningful access" is met.' Ex parte Thigpen, 513 So.2d 101, 102 (Ala.Cr.App.1987). We find no error in this Hunt, 659 So.2d at 938. Hunt cannot show that his counsel's performance was deficient in this regard. Hunt next argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to testimony...
  • Hunt v. State, No. CR-02-0813 (AL 11/23/2005)
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • November 23, 2005
    ..."'While prison officials must provide prisoners with direct legal assistance or access to a law library, they are not required to provide both, so long as the constitutional requirement of "meaningful access" is met.' Ex parte Thigpen, 513 So. 2d 101, 102 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987). We find no error in this Hunt, 659 So. 2d at 938. Hunt cannot show that his counsel's performance was deficient in this regard. Hunt next argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to testimony...