Malone v. State, CR-95-1942
| Decision Date | 01 November 1996 |
| Docket Number | CR-95-1942 |
| Citation | 687 So.2d 218 |
| Parties | Ronald David MALONE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Ronald David Malone, pro se.
Jeff Sessions, Atty. Gen., and Thomas Leverette, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Appellee.
The appellant, Ronald David Malone, appeals from the summary denial of his request to proceed in forma pauperis. The appellant pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, illegal distribution of a controlled substance. He was sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment. This court affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal on August 19, 1994. On June 21, 1996, the appellant filed a declaration seeking to proceed "in forma pauperis" on his petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P. Attached to the declaration was a record of the appellant's prison account from February 15, 1996, through June 20, 1996, which showed a balance of $15.04 as of June 20, 1996. Furthermore, the record reveals that during that period, the appellant's account never contained more than $60.21.
The docket fee for the filing of a petition for post-conviction relief is $110.00. § 12-19-71(3), Ala.Code 1975. See Rule 32.6(a), Ala.R.Crim.P. The term "indigent," as used in the Rules of Criminal Procedure, means "a person who is financially unable to pay for his or her defense." Rule 6.3(a), Ala.R.Crim.P. It appears from the record before this court that the appellant was indigent when he filed his petition for post-conviction relief. Furthermore, there is no indication in the record that the appellant's status has changed. Here, " Stafford v. State, 647 So.2d 102 (Ala.Cr.App.1994).
The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and this cause is remanded to the circuit court with directions that the appellant be permitted to proceed on his Rule 32 petition without payment of the docket fee, unless the appellant's status has changed and the appellant is no longer in fact indigent and the circuit court's finding to this effect is made on the record.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
All Judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. Bentley (Ex parte Cook)
...because, “[f]rom examining the [prisoner's] prison account balances, we conclude that the [prisoner] is indigent”); Malone v. State, 687 So.2d 218 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) (reversing order denying IFP status when prisoner showed a balance of $15.04 in his inmate trust account on the filing date,......
-
State v. Robey (Ex parte Robey)
...status because “[f]rom examining the appellant's prison account balances, we conclude that the appellant is indigent”); Malone v. State, 687 So.2d 218 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) (reversing denial of IFP status when prisoner showed a balance of $15.04 in his prison account on the filing date, the m......
-
State v. Robey (In re Robey), 1121399
...because "[f]rom examining the appellant's prison account balances, we conclude that theappellant is indigent"); Malone v. State, 687 So. 2d 218 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996) (reversing denial of IFP status when prisoner showed a balance of $15.04 in his prison account on the filing date, the maxim......
-
Ex parte Dozier
...1274 (Ala.2000); Ex parte Ferrell, 819 So.2d at 84; Ex parte Coleman, 728 So.2d 703, 704-05 (Ala.Crim.App.1998); and Malone v. State, 687 So.2d 218, 219 (Ala.Crim.App.1996). Nothing before this Court indicates that Dozier's financial status has changed since he filed his We conclude that th......