City of Center Point v. Kenneth Crowder (Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court: CV-12-929)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/04/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2120965 C i t y o f Center P o i n t v. Kenneth Crowder 2120966 C i t y o f Center P o i n t v. Roderick R e g i n a l d H a r r i s 2120967 C i t y o f Center P o i n t v. Matthew Thomas Driy Appeals from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court (CV-12-929, CV-12-930, and CV-12-931) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g Judge. In 2011, t h e C i t y o f C e n t e r P o i n t ("the c i t y " ) s o u g h t t o have t h e A l a b a m a L e g i s l a t u r e p a s s an a c t a u t h o r i z i n g t h e c i t y t o u s e cameras f o r what i t c h a r a c t e r i z e d as "automated civil enforcement" of c e r t a i n t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g speeding and failure t o stop a t stop lights or stop signs. In r e s p o n s e , t h e l e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t e d A c t No. 2011-580, A l a . A c t s 2011 (hereinafter "theA c t " ) . Subsequently, the c i t y ' s city c o u n c i l e n a c t e d an o r d i n a n c e i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e Act. 1 The language of the city's ordinance i s v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l t o that of the A c t ; although these appeals involve the p r o p r i e t y o f b o t h t h e A c t and t h e c i t y ' s o r d i n a n c e , f o r t h e s a k e o f s i m p l i c i t y , we r e f e r t o a n d c i t e o n l y t h e A c t i n this opinion. 1 2 2120965, 2120966, and The Act receives contest violation hearing provides, notice the 2120967 in pertinent that he imposition by seeking or of a she the part, has civil hearing o f f i c e r a p p o i n t e d by t h e that a driver the violated penalty before who may Act imposed f o r an the administrative c i t y ' s mayor. I f the city's administrative hearing o f f i c e r determines that a v i o l a t i o n the a d r i v e r who Act has occurred, determination may r e v i e w to the D i s t r i c t Court of Act No. 2011-580 violations); § so by filing (applicable violations). d i s t r i c t court shall "a The conduct 2011-580 Act the manner as t h e c o u r t h e a r s a s m a l l c l a i m s and § 13(I), Act No. 2011-580. then that for j u d i c i a l County." stop-light No. challenge petition Jefferson to 13(I), Ala. Act. excessive-speed "[t]he do wants t o of and § 5(I), stop-sign (applicable specifies appeal i n the c i v i l action." § to that same 5(I) 2 The p e r t i n e n t p o r t i o n s of the A c t p e r t a i n i n g t o the r i g h t o f a p p e a l u n d e r t h a t A c t r e a d as f o l l o w s : 2 "(I) The d e c i s i o n o f t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r s h a l l be t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n by t h e c i t y c o u n c i l . A p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s a g g r i e v e d by a d e c i s i o n may file a p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w t o the D i s t r i c t Court o f J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e d a t e o f e n t r y of the d e c i s i o n . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h a l l c o n d u c t t h e a p p e a l i n t h e same manner as t h e c o u r t hears a small claims c i v i l a c t i o n . " 3 2120965, 2120966, and 2120967 I n J a n u a r y 2012, he had c i t y n o t i f i e d Kenneth Crowder v i o l a t e d t h e A c t by r u n n i n g a s t o p s i g n and i m p o s i n g a $100 2012, the the penalty for that v i o l a t i o n . c i t y n o t i f i e d Roderick Reginald Thomas D r i y that t h e y had s p e e d l i m i t and t h a t i t was violations. Crowder, v i o l a t e d the i m p o s i n g $100 Harris, t h a t i t was Also i n January H a r r i s and Act by Matthew exceeding penalties and Driy hearing. The accusation pay the of the penalty against drivers e a c h d r i v e r , and (hereinafter then each ("the review administrative § the 5 ( I ) , Act. No. an city's he o r d e r e d e a c h d r i v e r t o timely d i s t r i c t court") the filed Act. in the Jefferson a petition for j u d i c i a l decision upholding the city's 2011-580. "(I) The d e c i s i o n o f t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r s h a l l be the f i n a l d e c i s i o n by the city council for j u d i c i a l review to the J e f f e r s o n County D i s t r i c t C o u r t w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e d a t e o f e n t r y o f t h e decision. The d i s t r i c t court s h a l l conduct the a p p e a l i n t h e same manner as t h e c o u r t h e a r s a s m a l l claims c i v i l a c t i o n . " § 13(I), Act. No. 2011-580. 4 the administrative o f f i c e r u p h e l d the i m p o s e d by D i s t r i c t Court of requesting administrative hearing applicable penalty The by the f o r those c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e d r i v e r s " ) e a c h c h a l l e n g e d imposition that 2120965, 2120966, and imposition of court entered found that the an 2120967 penalty. order i t lacked On June i n each of 11, the subject-matter 2012, the district a c t i o n s , i n which i t jurisdiction over the a c t i o n and p u r p o r t e d to t r a n s f e r the a c t i o n to the J e f f e r s o n Circuit trial Court district ("the court's 2012, the t r i a l judgment i n each a c t i o n . district court filed November order the I n i t s A u g u s t 17, subject-matter appealed review, 2012, or to 2012, the city's determined that court petitions for We i s s u i n g one The the the court In each o r d e r , postjudgment district appealed. trial Act motion and identical judgments, entered a consider clarified that jurisdiction to consider or "appeals." d r i v e r s have not have c o n s o l i d a t e d t h e opinion. 5 validly submitted appeals The On postjudgment court to review, the actions. the t r i a l failed judicial the "appeals." a postjudgment motion f o r a l l three 19, the f a i l e d to a f f o r d jurisdiction for j u d i c i a l i n each a c t i o n . court. party c o u r t e n t e r e d an c o u r t determined t h a t the Act drivers' petitions city No orders. On A u g u s t 17, the t r i a l court"). confer the briefs denied i t had on the drivers' The to city this f o r the purpose of 2120965, 2120966, and On appeal, subject-matter enter the 2120967 city argues t h a t the jurisdiction to consider i t s judgments determining trial these t h a t the Act court lacked a c t i o n s and d i d not to confer s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n over the d r i v e r s ' "appeals" to the district court. The 3 provides f o r appeals actions to be city argues that because by p e r s o n s s u c h a s t h e d r i v e r s i n brought i n the small-claims division d i s t r i c t c o u r t , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t can e x e r c i s e no over the appeals under the The j u r i s d i c t i o n a l not in comments made by the personnel underlying and the by the parties the t r i a l actions district Act these of the jurisdiction Act. issues presented advanced o r i g i n a l l y Rather, the i n these appeals i n the courts court d u r i n g the indicate that below. hearings district-court j u d g e were u n c e r t a i n w h e t h e r A c t had p r o p e r l y c o n f e r r e d s u b j e c t - m a t t e r were jurisdiction on the the The t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgments, i n a d d i t i o n t o d i s m i s s i n g the d r i v e r s ' appeals, i n substance a l s o d e c l a r e i n v a l i d the p o r t i o n s of the Act governing j u r i s d i c t i o n over p e t i t i o n s f o r judicial review. A c c o r d i n g l y , because the c i t y has an i n t e r e s t i n d e f e n d i n g the v a l i d i t y of the p o r t i o n s of the A c t t h a t were e f f e c t i v e l y i n v a l i d a t e d by the trial court's j u d g m e n t s , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e c i t y i s s u f f i c i e n t l y a g g r i e v e d by t h e j u d g m e n t s t o have s t a n d i n g i n t h e s e a p p e a l s . Alcazar S h r i n e Temple v. Montgomery C n t y . S h e r i f f ' s D e p ' t , 868 So. 2d 1093, 1094 ( A l a . 2003) ("Only a p a r t y p r e j u d i c e d o r a g g r i e v e d by a j u d g m e n t can a p p e a l . " ) . 3 6 2120965, 2120966, and district court and, 2120967 therefore, whether the district court c o u l d p r o p e r l y proceed to c o n s i d e r the d r i v e r s ' appeals. question raised by the c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i a l could, as the review of a officer Act district c o u r t , was court, of the city's as a s m a l l - c l a i m s a c t i o n . was petition for court jurisdiction of the Article could city's VI, § hearing 143 Recomp.), w h i c h hearing 4 properly over a p e t i t i o n judicial administrative I n a s s e r t i n g i t s argument t h a t , u n d e r t h e A c t , district later whether the d i s t r i c t c o u r t dictates, treat a decision which The exercise only the subject-matter f o r j u d i c i a l review of a d e c i s i o n officer, the city relies p r i m a r i l y on of the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n of 1901 (Off. provides: "The d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h a l l be a c o u r t o f l i m i t e d jurisdiction and s h a l l e x e r c i s e u n i f o r m original jurisdiction in such cases, and within such g e o g r a p h i c a l b o u n d a r i e s , as s h a l l be p r e s c r i b e d by law, p r o v i d e d t h a t the d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h a l l h o l d c o u r t i n e a c h c o u n t y s e a t and a t s u c h o t h e r p l a c e s as p r e s c r i b e d by l a w . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h a l l have j u r i s d i c t i o n of a l l cases a r i s i n g under ordinances o f m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n w h i c h t h e r e i s no m u n i c i p a l T h e t r i a l c o u r t q u e s t i o n e d w h e t h e r t h e c i t y had the a u t h o r i t y t o a c t as an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y by p r o v i d i n g f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e v i e w o f i t s own d e c i s i o n s . T h a t i s s u e has n o t b e e n p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s c o u r t , and we make no c o n c l u s i o n s regarding that issue. 4 7 2120965, 2120966, a n d 2120967 c o u r t and s h a l l h o l d c o u r t i n e a c h i n c o r p o r a t e d m u n i c i p a l i t y o f a p o p u l a t i o n o f 1000 o r more where t h e r e i s no m u n i c i p a l c o u r t a t p l a c e s p r e s c r i b e d by law." (Emphasis added.) It i s undisputed municipal district court. t h a t t h e c i t y does n o t o p e r a t e Therefore, under court exercises o r i g i n a l involving the v i o l a t i o n A r t . VI, jurisdiction of the c i t y ' s § i t s own 143, the of a l l cases municipal ordinances. The c i t y c o n t e n d s t h a t , i n t h e s e c a s e s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t has jurisdiction over arguing § 143 a f f o r d s t h e d i s t r i c t over that " a l l cases (Emphasis makes may the c i v i l arising added.) civil under ordinances In r e s o l v i n g no d e t e r m i n a t i o n exercise actions arising these under the A c t , court jurisdiction of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . " appeals, this regarding whether the d i s t r i c t jurisdiction i n matters v i o l a t i o n s of c i v i l municipal ordinances. 5 court court pertaining to Rather, we assume, without deciding, that the d i s t r i c t court could e x e r c i s e civil jurisdiction civil municipal over actions involving the v i o l a t i o n of ordinances. A r t i c l e V I , § 145, A l a . C o n s t . 1901 ( O f f . Recomp.), a n d § 1 2 - 1 4 - 1 , A l a . Code 1975, s e t f o r t h t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f municipal courts. 5 8 2120965, 2120966, and Proceeding indicated in 2120967 under note that 2, assumption, supra, the g o v e r n i n g an a c c u s e d d r i v e r ' s r i g h t driver must hearing file a officer's petition "petition purported on June of determining purporting "appeal" 2011-580. for judicial 2012, that to the review" that The Act of the the subject-matter review, district i t lacked transfer i s t o be district o r an court the driver's court "appeal," of a Accordingly, entered subject-matter See jurisdiction a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n of the c i t y . 11, as a c t i o n i n the d i s t r i c t court. i t d i d n o t have a petition that, to appeal s p e c i f y that the as an § 5 ( I ) , and § 1 3 ( I ) , A c t No. over provisions for judicial review t r e a t e d as a s m a l l - c l a i m s that note d e c i s i o n ; the A c t then c h a r a c t e r i z e s such a for judicial concluded we i t s orders jurisdiction appeals to the and trail court. The June 11, 2012, o r d e r s actions i n the jurisdiction. district constituted dismissals court for lack of of the subject-matter However, none o f t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e d i s t r i c t - c o u r t a c t i o n s f i l e d an a p p e a l o f t h e June 11, 2012, o r d e r s the trial determination court that to challenge i t lacked the jurisdiction 9 district to to court's consider the 2120965, 2120966, a n d 2120967 drivers' appeals. See § 1 2 - 1 2 - 7 1 , A l a . Code 1975 ("[A]ll a p p e a l s f r o m f i n a l j u d g m e n t s o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h a l l be t o the c i r c u i t court f o rt r i a l and the c i t y proceeded de n o v o . " ) . i n the t r i a l Rather, the d r i v e r s court, apparently under the assumption t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o u l d p r o p e r l y t r a n s f e r the three a c t i o n s t o t h e t r i a l In f a c t , determines court. a d i s t r i c t c o u r t may t r a n s f e r an a c t i o n t h a t i t i s not w i t h i n within the j u r i s d i c t i o n i t s jurisdiction of the c i r c u i t but, rather, i s court: " I f a case f i l e d i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t i s w i t h i n the e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f a d i s t r i c t c o u r t or a case f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s w i t h i n t h e exclusive j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c i r c u i t court, the c i r c u i t c l e r k o r a j u d g e o f t h e c o u r t where t h e c a s e was f i l e d s h a l l t r a n s f e r t h e c a s e t o t h e d o c k e t o f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c o u r t , a n d t h e c l e r k s h a l l make s u c h c o s t a n d d o c k e t f e e a d j u s t m e n t s as may be r e q u i r e d and t r a n s f e r a l l c a s e r e c o r d s . " § 12-11-9, A l a . Code 1975. court transfer circuit an action within court i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l . district-court subject-matter the j u r i s d i c t i o n § 12-11-9. of the However, for a o r d e r t r a n s f e r r i n g an a c t i o n t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o be e f f e c t i v e , Hawk, The r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a d i s t r i c t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t must have e x c l u s i v e jurisdiction over [Ms. 2120461, Aug. 9, 2013] 10 the action. So. 3d A l e x a n d e r v. , (Ala. 2120965, 2120966, a n d 2120967 Civ. App. 2013) improperly action (holding purported over which jurisdiction, that, when to transfer the c i r c u i t the c i r c u i t the d i s t r i c t to the c i r c u i t court lacked c o u r t was w i t h o u t court court an subject-matter jurisdiction to e n t e r i t s j u d g m e n t , w h i c h was v o i d , a n d d i s m i s s i n g t h e a p p e a l f r o m t h a t v o i d j u d g m e n t ) ; D a r b y v. S c h l e y , 8 So. 3d 1011, 1014 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( h o l d i n g t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e c i r c u i t did n o t have s u b j e c t - m a t t e r jurisdiction court over the u n l a w f u l - detainer a c t i o n , the d i s t r i c t court's "unauthorized t r a n s f e r " of the a c t i o n "could not t r a n s f e r jurisdiction over that a c t i o n t o t h e " c i r c u i t c o u r t ) ; c f . Ex p a r t e S m i t h , 438 So. 2d 766, 767-68 ( A l a . 1983) ( h o l d i n g t h a t , when t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t dismissed, rather jurisdiction court could appeal, and jurisdiction than t r a n s f e r r e d , a case not w i t h i n i t s and a p a r t y a p p e a l e d t h a t d i s m i s s a l , t h e c i r c u i t consider only determining on a p p e a l t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e d i s m i s s a l on that the circuit court lacked to consider the merits of the a c t i o n ) . Thus, t h i s c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l exercise subject-matter petitions for judicial jurisdiction review i n order 11 over court the t o determine could drivers' whether 2120965, 2120966, and 2120967 the d i s t r i c t court c o u l d v a l i d l y t r a n s f e r the d r i v e r s ' a c t i o n s to the t r i a l court. A c i r c u i t court exercises general jurisdiction over a l l actions unless j u r i s d i c t i o n i s s p e c i f i c a l l y l i m i t e d to another c o u r t by o t h e r Recomp.). law. A r t . V I , § 142, A l a . C o n s t . "[W]hether jurisdiction over a a circuit case court i s determined has by 1901 ( O f f . subject-matter inquiring as t o w h e t h e r t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t has t h e r e q u i s i t e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o r s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y over the case." 3d 48, 52 The Act, city that argues, the relying trial We statute governing these jurisdiction "appeals," over filed appellate the lacked agree that appeals, petitions by t h e d r i v e r s . review court. jurisdiction solely court appeals. district over of Thus, appeals the the on t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e jurisdiction jurisdiction affords the trial for judicial city's decision purports of decisions to court review, or specifies i s i n the limit of the c i t y the to the c o u r t does n o t have u n d e r A r t . V I , § 142. 12 the i n the A c t , the The A c t c l e a r l y Act over nothing d i s t r i c t c o u r t , and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e t r i a l general 84 So. ( A l a . 2010). drivers' that Ex p a r t e C o l l i n s , Accordingly, we 2120965, 2120966, a n d 2120967 conclude that the trial court did not have general j u r i s d i c t i o n over the i s s u e s r a i s e d i n the d r i v e r s ' p e t i t i o n s for judicial officer's review, or appeals, of the city's hearing decisions. A l s o , t h e d r i v e r s ' p e t i t i o n s f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w may n o t be considered certiorari t o be that considered common-law could be by t h e t r i a l 949, properly court. a p p e a l may n o t s e e k a p p e l l a t e petition petitions having to of and a right to r e v i e w b y way o f a common-law ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) Code 1975,] p r o v i d e d transferred A party f o r a w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i . 952 f o r the w r i t Reed v . W h i t e , 80 So. 3d ("Because § 36-26-27[, A l a . White a s t a t u t o r y r i g h t t o appeal t h [ e ] d e c i s i o n , she c o u l d n o t c i r c u m v e n t t h a t p r o c e d u r e b y f i l i n g a p e t i t i o n f o r a common-law w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i . " ) . The l a n g u a g e o f t h e A c t a f f o r d s t h e d r i v e r s a method o f o b t a i n i n g r e v i e w o f the city's decisions. Accordingly, this court declines to t r e a t t h e d r i v e r s ' a p p e a l s as p e t i t i o n s f o r a common-law w r i t of certiorari other basis that could be h e a r d for jurisdiction We h o l d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t i n the t r i a l i n the t r i a l court. No court i s apparent. court's purported transfers of t h e d r i v e r s ' p e t i t i o n s f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w were w i t h o u t e f f e c t 13 2120965, 2120966, and 2120967 because the t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d not e x e r c i s e e x c l u s i v e o r i g i n a l jurisdiction those p e t i t i o n s , over or appeals. Accordingly, because n e i t h e r the d r i v e r s nor the c i t y f i l e d appeals to the trial orders c o u r t from the d i s t r i c t determining the that i t lacked subject-matter drivers' jurisdiction Darby v. petitions, jurisdiction lacking supra. Accordingly, 559 trial The Alexander trial those t o be d i s m i s s e d . ( A l a . C i v . App. subject-matter 2008) ("A never over obtained v. Hawk, s u p r a ; court judgments 2012, jurisdiction court t o e n t e r i t s A u g u s t 17, 2012, a p p e a l s a r e due 556, the over those a c t i o n s . Schley, actions. c o u r t ' s June 11, was without judgments i n these are void, and See Vann v. Cook, 989 So. the 2d j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d by a c o u r t jurisdiction i s absolutely void and w i l l n o t s u p p o r t an a p p e a l ; an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t must d i s m i s s an attempted appeal from such a judgment."). APPEALS DISMISSED. Pittman Thomas and and Donaldson, J J . , concur. Moore, J J . , concur writings. 14 in the result, without

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.