State v. Sullivan
Decision Date | 06 October 1999 |
Parties | Ex parte State of Alabama. In re STATE of Alabama v. Carroll H. SULLIVAN. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and James B. Prude, asst. atty. gen., for petitioner.
Donald M. Briskman, Mobile, for respondent.
The State of Alabama filed this petition for a writ of mandamus requesting us to direct Judge Robert Kendall, circuit judge for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, to vacate the order granting Carroll H. Sullivan's motion to dismiss the perjury charge against him.1 Sullivan had been indicted for first-degree perjury by the Mobile County grand jury that was convened in October 1998. Sullivan's trial was scheduled to begin on March 1, 1999, before Judge Chris Galanos. On that date a jury was empaneled and sworn, the attorneys made their opening statements, and court was then adjourned for the evening. The next morning the State called its first witness, Wayne Zimlich.2 After a lengthy discussion with the trial court, Zimlich invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The State immediately moved for a mistrial. Judge Galanos granted the motion and informed Sullivan that he could file a motion to dismiss the charge on the ground that to try him again would violate principles of double jeopardy. Sullivan moved to dismiss. After a hearing, Judge Galanos ruled that jeopardy had attached and, therefore, that a retrial was barred. Judge Galanos found that there was no manifest necessity for a mistrial; thus, he held, a retrial was barred on the principles of double jeopardy. The State filed a notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 15.7, Ala. R.Crim.P., which governs pretrial appeals by the State. We dismissed the appeal on July 2, 1999, holding that the State had no right to appeal the ruling, which was made after jeopardy had attached. State v. Sullivan, 741 So.2d 1125 (Ala.Cr.App.1999). The State then petitioned for a writ of mandamus challenging Judge Galanos's ruling.
This Court's opinion dismissing the direct appeal in this case also stated that the State was not without a remedy to seek review of Judge Galanos's ruling.
741 So.2d at 1127. This case is properly before this Court by way of a mandamus petition.
The facts surrounding the case were set out by this Court in an opinion issued in response to a mandamus petition filed by Wayne Zimlich, Sullivan's codefendant and the witness who invoked the Fifth Amendment at Sullivan's trial. See Ex parte Zimlich, [Ms. CR-98-1612, June 10, 1999] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.Cr.App.1999). As we stated in that case:
The State first argues that Judge Galanos erred in granting the motion to dismiss because Sullivan had consented to the mistrial; thus, it argues, he waived any double jeopardy claim. It further argues that, even if Sullivan did not consent to the mistrial, the State met its burden of proving that "manifest necessity" existed for the mistrial.
This Court in Cox v. State, 585 So.2d 182 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 987, 112 S.Ct. 1676, 118 L.Ed.2d 394 (1992), stated the following:
(Emphasis original.)
In Stevenson v. State, 404 So.2d 111 (Ala.Cr.App.1981), this Court set out the basis for the rationale that a defendant's consent to a mistrial waives any double jeopardy argument upon retrial.
404 So.2d at 114. "`[C]onsent may always be implied form the totality of circumstances attendant on the declaration of a mistrial.'" State v. Tiger, 972 S.W.2d 385, 389 (Mo.App.1998). See also Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 102 S.Ct. 2083, 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982); United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 96 S.Ct. 1075, 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (1976). Here, the record reflects that when the prosecutor requested a mistrial, after its main witness—Zimlich—refused to testify, Sullivan moved to dismiss the charge with prejudice. Sullivan's counsel stated:
It does not appear that Sullivan consented to the mistrial. In fact, Sullivan twice requested that the charges against him be dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Sullivan
...jeopardy had attached, Zimlich's inconvenient refusal to testify constituted a "manifest necessity"1 for a retrial. State v. Sullivan, 748 So.2d 914 (Ala.Crim.App.1999). Sullivan then filed the instant petition with this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Court of Criminal Appeals t......
-
EX PARTE STATE
...mandamus in Ex Parte Sullivan, 779 So.2d 1157 (Ala.2000). (The October 6, 1999, opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals is published at 748 So.2d 914.) ...