Ex parte Thigpen, 7 Div. 900
Decision Date | 10 August 1987 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 900 |
Citation | 513 So.2d 101 |
Parties | Ex parte Morris THIGPEN, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections. (In re State of Alabama v. John Wayne Fleming). |
Court | Alabama 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.
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:
(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 FreeStart 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

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

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

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

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

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
McMillian v. Johnson
...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
...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
..."`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)
..."'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...