Hyde v. State
| Decision Date | 23 July 2004 |
| Citation | 894 So.2d 808 |
| Parties | James Matthew HYDE v. STATE of Alabama. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Cattleya Chatawanich, Birmingham; Caroline Turner English, Washington, D.C.; and Michael Evan Jaffe, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Troy King, atty. gen., and Margaret Mary (Missy) Fullmer, deputy atty. gen., for appellee.
On Return to Remand
The appellant, James Matthew Hyde, appeals the denial of his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P. On January 11, 2002, Hyde filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., attacking his capital-murder conviction and his sentence of death. The petition was accompanied by an in forma pauperis declaration to proceed without the prepayment of the required filing fee. On February 20, 2004, the circuit court denied Hyde's Rule 32 petition without ruling on his request for indigency status. Hyde filed a notice of appeal to this Court. On April 29, 2004, Hyde moved that we allow him to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. In that motion Hyde stated that the record showed that the circuit court never ruled on his in forma pauperis request. By order dated May 7, 2004, we remanded the case for the circuit court to supplement the record to reflect whether it ruled on Hyde's in forma pauperis request before issuing a ruling on the Rule 32 petition.
On remand the circuit court granted indigency status and issued an order allowing Hyde leave to supplement and amend his Rule 32 petition. The State moved that we dismiss this appeal as an appeal from a void judgment. It asserts that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to consider the Rule 32 petition because it had failed to rule on Hyde's in forma pauperis request. We allowed Hyde an opportunity to respond to the State's motion to dismiss this appeal.
The State contends that we should dismiss this appeal because, it argues, the circuit court had no jurisdiction to dispose of the Rule 32 petition without first ruling on Hyde's in forma pauperis request. The State further argues that the circuit court exceeded the scope of our remand order by granting Hyde leave to amend and supplement his Rule 32 petition.
It is uncontested that the circuit court did not rule on Hyde's in forma pauperis request before it denied his Rule 32 petition. A circuit court does not obtain subject matter jurisdiction of a Rule 32 petition until either a filing fee has been paid or a request to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted. See Maxwell v. State, [Ms. CR-02-1662, February 27, 2004] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.Crim.App.2004); Whitson v. State, 891 So.2d 421 (Ala.Crim.App.2004); Baker v. State, 805 So.2d 241, 244 (Ala.Crim.App.2004); Campbell v. State, 883 So.2d 1271 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); Jackson v. State, 854 So.2d 157 (Ala.Crim.App.2002); Goldsmith v. State, 709 So.2d 1352 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). Madden v. State, 885 So.2d 841, 844 (Ala.Crim.App.2004) ().
On May 7, 2004, this Court issued an order remanding the case to the circuit court for the limited purpose of supplementing the record with written findings on Hyde's in forma pauperis request. This Court's order stated:
"The Court of Criminal Appeals orders that this case be and the same is hereby remanded to the trial court with directions that the record on appeal be supplemented with the trial court's written findings or other sufficient proof as to whether it granted the appellant's motion to prosecute his petition in forma pauperis or whether the appellant paid a filing fee before the trial court rendered the judgment now being appealed."
The circuit court response to this Court's order contains its May 7, 2004, ruling granting Hyde's request for in forma pauperis status. However, the circuit court also issued an order allowing Hyde to supplement and amend his Rule 32 petition. "`On remand, the issues decided by the appellate court become law of the case and the trial court's duty is to comply with the appellate mandate "according to its true intent and meaning, as determined by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Dunn
...motion to strike the proposed Second Amended R32 Petition. (See Vol. 53,R-129.) In so doing, Judge Youngpeter relied on Hyde v. State, 894 So.2d 808 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004), for the proposition that "the normal rules for freely allowing amendment of a Rule 32 petition before judgment did not a......
-
Hyde v. State
...Hyde to file an amended petition exceeded the scope of our remand order and, thus, was void for lack of jurisdiction. Hyde v. State, 894 So.2d 808 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). On September 22, 2004, the circuit court issued an order accepting Hyde's May 20, 2004, amendment to his petition and, afte......
-
Ward v. State
...relief.2 On remand, "[t]he circuit court was limited to the scope of [the Supreme Court's] remand order." Hyde v. State, 894 So.2d 808, 810 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). In Ward V, the Supreme Court limited the remand proceedings to the issue of equitable tolling. Thus, the circuit court correctl......
-
Dubose Constr. Co. v. Dubose Constr. Co.
...modify the original or base sentence imposed or to take any action beyond the express mandate of this court’)); see also Hyde v. State, 894 So.2d 808 (Ala.Crim.App.2004), and Moore v. State, 871 So.2d 106 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (accord). “8. In Peterson v. State, 842 So.2d 734, 739–40 (Ala.Cri......