Lucas v. State
| Citation | 597 So.2d 759 |
| Parties | Hiram Paul LUCAS v. STATE. CR 91-330. |
| Decision Date | 13 March 1992 |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Hiram Paul Lucas, pro se.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Andy S. Poole, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The petitioner, an inmate of the State Department of Corrections, filed a petition for post-conviction relief and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. This appeal is from the summary denial of that motion.
The petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis appears to be in proper form as required by Rule 32.6(a), A.R.Crim.P., as it is accompanied by a statement of his prison account. That statement shows that there has never been any more than $31.47 in the petitioner's account at any one time. The record shows that the forma pauperis motion was denied, but does not disclose the reason or basis for that denial.
At present, the docket fee for the filing of a petition for post-conviction relief in circuit court is $95.00. Ala.Code 1975, § 12-19-71(3) (Supp.1991); Rule 32.6(a). From the record before this Court, it appears that the petitioner is indigent. We note that in March of 1991, the circuit court ordered that the petitioner be permitted to appeal his conviction for first degree robbery in forma pauperis. Consequently, the judgment of the circuit court denying the appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on his post-conviction petition must be reversed. See Hoppins v. State, 451 So.2d 363 (Ala.Cr.App.1982), cert. denied, 451 So.2d 365 (Ala.1983).
This cause is remanded to the trial court with directions that the appellant be permitted to proceed with the prosecution of his petition for post-conviction relief without the payment of any docket fee. However, the circuit court may require the payment of that docket fee if the petitioner is not in fact indigent and the finding of the circuit court to that effect is made a part of the record.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
All Judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
James v. State
...R.Crim. P. However, the State asserts that this error does not require reversal. First, James argues that according to Lucas v. State, 597 So.2d 759 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), the circuit court erred because it failed to set out its reasons for denying the in forma pauperis request. He also cites......
-
James v. State, No. CR-04-0395 (Ala. Crim. App. 3/26/2010)
...Crim. P. However, the State asserts that this error does not require reversal. First, James argues that according to Lucas v. State, 597 So. 2d 759 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992), the circuit court erred because it failed to set out its reasons for denying the in forma pauperis request. He also cit......
-
Cook v. Bentley (Ex parte Cook)
...to the trial court for its consideration. Ex parte Cincinnati Ins. Co., 51 So.3d 298, 310 (Ala.2010).7 See, e.g., Lucas v. State, 597 So.2d 759, 760 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (reversing order denying IFP status when “there has never been any more than $31.47 in the [prisoner's] account at any one......
-
State v. Robey (Ex parte Robey)
...of indigency, refused to grant IFP status. The Court of Criminal Appeals was responsive to these complaints. See Lucas v. State, 597 So.2d 759, 760 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (reversing denial of IFP status when “there has never been any more than $31.47 in the petitioner's account at any one time......