The Citizenship Trust et al v. Mary Kathleen Keddie-Hill et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 1/14/2011 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 1090545 Citizenship Trust et a l . v. Mary K a t h l e e n K e d d i e - H i l l et a l . 1090625 Mary K a t h l e e n K e d d i e - H i l l et a l . v. Citizenship Appeals Trust et a l . f r o m Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-09-901172) Court 1090545; PER CURIAM. The his 1090 62 5 Citizenship capacity as e x e c u t i v e Michael Sparks, director Trust; Tom W a l k e r , director i n d i v i d u a l l y and i n of the Citizenship i n d i v i d u a l l y and i n h i s o f f i c i a l o f t h e Alabama Department o f F o r e n s i c M i c h a e l Hudson, capacity capacity comptroller o f t h e S t a t e o f Alabama, appeal from a injunction entered Cheryl Tillman, Hammond a n d J u s t i n Hammond. cross-appeal motion f o r class order issuing certification, o f Mary from the injunction, and d i s m i s s Keddie-Hill, the t r i a l certification. Kathleen court's We r e v e r s e affirm the appeal as preliminary Keddie-Hill, 1 T i l l m a n , and denial the t r i a l i t s order as S c i e n c e s ; and i n d i v i d u a l l y and i n h i s o f f i c i a l i n favor Trust; of their court's denying class a s t o Hammond. Facts I. A c t No. 2 0 0 9 - 7 6 8 In 2009, t h e Alabama L e g i s l a t u r e which p a s s e d A c t No. 2 0 0 9 - 7 6 8 , provides: "AN ACT In b r i e f s t o t h i s Court, the p a r t i e s at times r e f e r t o K e d d i e - H i l l as "'Katherine K e d d i e - H i l l . " The r e c o r d , h o w e v e r , supports the conclusion that Keddie-Hill's name i s "'Mary Kathleen Keddie-Hill." 1 2 1090545; 1090 62 5 " R e l a t i n g t o c r i m i n a l p r o c e d u r e ; t o a l l o w an i n d i v i d u a l c o n v i c t e d o f a c a p i t a l o f f e n s e who i s s e r v i n g a term of imprisonment or a w a i t i n g execution for a c a p i t a l offense to f i l e a motion to obtain f o r e n s i c DNA t e s t i n g on e v i d e n c e t h a t was s e c u r e d i n r e l a t i o n to the t r i a l that r e s u l t e d i n h i s or her c o n v i c t i o n ; t o p r o v i d e t h a t n o t i c e be g i v e n t o t h e s t a t e when a n i n d i v i d u a l f i l e s a m o t i o n f o r DNA t e s t i n g ; t o s p e c i f y t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t o be i n c l u d e d in the motion; to s p e c i f y c e r t a i n f i n d i n g s the court w o u l d make b e f o r e o r d e r i n g f o r e n s i c DNA t e s t i n g ; t o provide f o r t e s t i n g procedures and p o s t - t e s t i n g p r o c e d u r e s ; t o amend S e c t i o n s 36-18-24, 36-18-25, a n d 3 6 - 1 8 - 3 2 , C o d e o f A l a b a m a 1 9 7 5 , r e l a t i n g t o DNA database; to provide under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s f o r DNA t e s t i n g o f a l l p e r s o n s a r r e s t e d f o r a f e l o n y offense a f t e r O c t o b e r 1, 2 0 1 0 , o r f o r a n y sexual o f f e n s e ; t o i n c r e a s e t h e DNA d a t a b a s e f e e i n a l l municipal, district, and c i r c u i t court criminal c a s e s and c e r t a i n o t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s ; to provide f o r distribution o f t h e f e e ; and t o p r o v i d e f o r an a p p r o p r i a t i o n , f o r the f i s c a l y e a r ending September 30, 2 0 0 9 , a n d S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 1 0 . "BE I T ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA: "Section 2. S e c t i o n s 36-18-24, 36-18-25, and 3 6 - 1 8 - 3 2 , Code o f A l a b a m a 1975, a r e amended t o r e a d as f o l l o w s : fl "§ 36-18-32 " ( a ) There i s hereby e s t a b l i s h e d a s p e c i a l f u n d t o b e known a s t h e A l a b a m a DNA D a t a b a s e Fund. fl 3 1090545; 1090625 " ( e ) Monies d e p o s i t e d i n the Alabama DNA D a t a b a s e F u n d may b e e x p e n d e d b y t h e D i r e c t o r of the Alabama Department of F o r e n s i c Sciences in accordance with the provisions of this article. ... fl "(h) In a l l municipal, district, and circuit court c i v i l cases ... a f e e i n t h e a m o u n t o f two d o l l a r s ($2) s h a l l be assessed and c o l l e c t e d . I n a l l m u n i c i p a l , d i s t r i c t , and c i r c u i t c o u r t c r i m i n a l c a s e s ... a f e e i n t h e amount of twelve dollars ($12) shall be assessed and c o l l e c t e d . The f e e s h a l l be c o l l e c t e d b y t h e c o u r t c l e r k and r e m i t t e d as follows: "(1) Alabama 2010, "a. For $7. "b. DNA Database fiscal For f i s c a l years year "c. For fiscal t h e r e a f t e r , $11. Fund. 2009 2011, year and $8. 2012 and "(2) Citizenship Trust pursuant to S e c t i o n 16-44A-30, Code o f A l a b a m a 1975, for the purposes described i n Section 4 of this act. 2010, "a. For $5. "b. fiscal For f i s c a l years year "c. For fiscal t h e r e a f t e r , $1 2009 2011, year and $4. 2012 and fl " S e c t i o n 4. I t i s t h e i n t e n t o f t h i s a c t t o e f f e c t the changes p r o v i d e d i n c r i m i n a l procedure, and concurrently, to reduce c r i m i n a l conduct by p r o m o t i n g good c i t i z e n s h i p e d u c a t i o n . The a m o u n t s specified by this a c t t o be remitted to the 4 1090545; 1090625 C i t i z e n s h i p Trust ( ' T r u s t ' ) s h a l l be a p p r o p r i a t e d , expended, and a u d i t e d i n t h e manner p r o v i d e d b y A c t 2008-551 and S e c t i o n 16-44A-30, e t s e q . , Code o f A l a b a m a 1 9 7 5 , o f w h i c h one h a l f s h a l l b e f o r t h e D a v i d M a t h e w s C e n t e r f o r C i v i c L i f e . ... " II. Underlying A. Proceedings Keddie-Hill's Traffic Citation In September 2009, K e d d i e - H i l l r e c e i v e d a c i t a t i o n mail charging Montgomery. to her On the t r a f f i c with running October violation assessed against he r database fee" assessed in 2, a sign i n the City 2009, K e d d i e - H i l l p l e a d e d and p a i d the case, pursuant t h e f i n e s and including t o A c t No. with the fee, K e d d i e - H i l l submitted that stop i n the guilty court the $12 2009-768. a l e t t e r from her of costs "DNA Along attorney stated: "This firm represents Ms. K e d d i e - H i l l , and she s u b m i t s t h i s payment i n f u l l , b u t she i s p a y i n g t h e a d d i t i o n a l $10.00 r e q u i r e d by A c t 2009-768 under protest. She d o e s n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n [ s i c ] $10.00 c h a r g e i s v a l i d . " The testified record contains an affidavit i n which Keddie-Hill as f o l l o w s : " I p a i d t h e DNA D a t a b a s e F e e c h a r g e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d c i t a t i o n u n d e r p r o t e s t . ... W h i l e I p r o t e s t e d $10.00 o f t h e payment in [the l e t t e r w r i t t e n b y h e r a t t o r n e y ] , I h a v e now been told that only $5.00 o f t h e f e e c o l l e c t e d was unconstitutional. 5 1090545; 1090 62 5 "... I c o u l d not a f f o r d a lawyer to c h a l l e n g e the p o r t i o n of the fee t h a t I c o n s i d e r u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , t h a t $5.00 p o r t i o n t h a t i s b e i n g s u b m i t t e d to The C i t i z e n s h i p T r u s t , b e c a u s e i t w o u l d h a v e c o s t me f a r m o r e t o do so t h a n I w o u l d h a v e r e c e i v e d . "... I d i d not w i s h to c h a l l e n g e the c i t a t i o n or j u d g m e n t o f t h e M u n i c i p a l C o u r t a g a i n s t me as I g u i l t y of the t r a f f i c violation." B. Tillman's On October Traffic 2, 2009, Citation Cheryl Tillman for s p e e d i n g i n G r e e n e C o u n t y . The can be settled ordered database The which she without amount," a i.e., the was court received citation appearance $183, which an affidavit a citation stated: "This by included payment the of case the $12 "DNA Tillman in fee." record contains testifies as by Cheryl follows: "I pleaded g u i l t y to t h i s traffic violation and s i n c e t h a t time I have p a i d to the d i s t r i c t c o u r t of G r e e n e C o u n t y a l l f i n e s and court costs assessed a g a i n s t me i n t h a t c a s e , i n c l u d i n g t h e $12.00 f e e r e q u i r e d by A c t 2 0 0 9 - 7 6 8 . fl "... I c o u l d not a f f o r d a l a w y e r to c h a l l e n g e the p o r t i o n of the fee t h a t I c o n s i d e r u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , t h a t $5.00 p o r t i o n t h a t i s b e i n g s u b m i t t e d to The C i t i z e n s h i p T r u s t , b e c a u s e i t w o u l d h a v e c o s t me f a r m o r e t o do so t h a n I w o u l d h a v e r e c e i v e d . fl 6 1090545; 1090625 "... I d i d n o t w i s h t o c h a l l e n g e t h e c i t a t i o n o r t h e Judgment o f t h e Greene County D i s t r i c t Court a g a i n s t me a s I was g u i l t y o f t h e t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n . " C. Hammond's T r a f f i c Citation The an a f f i d a v i t record contains w h i c h he t e s t i f i e s by J u s t i n Hammond i n as f o l l o w s : "On N o v e m b e r 1, 2 0 0 9 , I , J u s t i n Hammond, r e c e i v e d a c i t a t i o n f o r speeding i n J e f f e r s o n County. A court a p p e a r a n c e i s s e t o n D e c e m b e r 1 4 , 200 9 b e f o r e t h e Honorable Sheldon Watkins i n the D i s t r i c t Court of Jefferson County. Should I p l e a [ d ] o r be f o u n d g u i l t y I a n t i c i p a t e being ordered t o pay f i n e s and court costs assessed against me i n that case, i n c l u d i n g t h e $12.00 f e e r e q u i r e d b y A c t 2 0 0 9 - 7 6 8 . [ ] 2 fl "... I can't a f f o r d a lawyer to challenge the portion of the fee that I consider unconstitutional, t h a t $5.00 p o r t i o n t h a t i s b e i n g s u b m i t t e d t o The C i t i z e n s h i p T r u s t , b e c a u s e i t w o u l d c o s t me f a r m o r e t o do s o t h a n w h a t I w o u l d s a v e . " III. Procedural On October representative required 7, History 2009, Keddie-Hill, o f a l l i n d i v i d u a l s who b y A c t No. 2 0 0 9 - 7 6 8 , filed individually and as had p a i d t h e $12 f e e a complaint against the C i t i z e n s h i p Trust, Walker ( i n d i v i d u a l l y and i n h i s c a p a c i t y as executive the director As o f t h e t i m e appeal, the d i s t r i c t speeding citation. 2 of Citizenship Trust), Sparks Hammond f i l e d h i s b r i e f i n t h e p r e s e n t c o u r t h a d n o t y e t d i s p o s e d o f Hammond's 7 1090545; 1090625 (individually Alabama State "the in his official Department (individually the and and of Forensic capacity Keddie-Hill No. fee to the C i t i z e n s h i p Trust alleged 2009-768 a l l o c a t i n g a p o r t i o n violated as and including, A r t . IV, things, she §§ was comptroller 3 Keddie-Hill and o f t h e $12 on 61, 4 sought grounds a to Act judgment declaring unconstitutional No. 2009-768. the and Alabama Const. pertinent part: 3 disputed a In 1901, Art. of Act injunction § as of that several the 1901. act Among injunction the funds c o l l e c t e d addition, IV, of database on preliminary portion permanent portion DNA A l a . Const. p r o h i b i t i n g the defendants from d i s b u r s i n g pursuant that unconstitutional alleged, 45 that the Hudson of Alabama) ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d to c o l l e c t i v e l y Act grounds, as d i r e c t o r o f Sciences), in his official defendants"). other capacity 45, she No. sought a 2009-768 requiring the provides, in " E a c h l a w s h a l l c o n t a i n b u t one s u b j e c t , w h i c h s h a l l be c l e a r l y e x p r e s s e d i n i t s t i t l e , e x c e p t general appropriation bills, general revenue bills, and bills a d o p t i n g a code, digest, or revision of statutes " Alabama Const. pertinent part: 4 1901, Art. IV, "[N]o b i l l s h a l l be s o a l t e r e d o r passage through either house as o r i g i n a l purpose." 8 § 61, provides, a m e n d e d on i t s to change i t s in 1090545; 1090625 defendants to return to the appropriate municipal clerks the collection her complaint referred disbursed of the fee. Tillman, to the defendants Keddie-Hill subsequently t o add T i l l m a n (Keddie-Hill, capacities t h e money c i r c u i t , d i s t r i c t , and Hammond, class in their also requested Trust p u r s u a n t t o A c t No. 2 0 0 9 - 7 6 8 b e r e t u r n e d class members cy pres the plaintiffs' class disbursed or, alternatively, the On a l l fees doctrine November 2, 2 0 0 9 , hearing on t h e i s s u e January 8, 2 0 1 0 , o r d e r , requiring denied of class filed a motion f o r 22, o n t h e i s s u e . On J a n u a r y the motion without certification. the t r i a l court the defendants by them p u r s u a n t preliminary to the putative o r , i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , f o rp r o v i s i o n a l court January to the Citizenship the p l a i n t i f f s 8, 2 0 1 0 , t h e t r i a l On The p l a i n t i f f s fees. pending a hearing received be be d i s t r i b u t e d p u r s u a n t t o class certification injunction will a f t e r p r o v i s i o n was made f o r p a y m e n t o f attorneys certification individual representatives, t o h e r e i n a f t e r as " t h e p l a i n t i f f s . " ) that amended a n d Hammond a s named p l a i n t i f f s . and and as p u t a t i v e from issued to holding Also in a i t s a preliminary escrow a l l funds t o A c t No. 2 0 0 9 - 7 6 8 . 2010, the injunction to this 9 defendants Court. appealed On F e b r u a r y the 5, 2 0 1 0 , 1090545; the of 1090 62 5 plaintiffs the denial filed of a notice their motion Standard In reviewing injunction, de novo for class of grant i t s ultimate injunction for Adkins, So. abuse 3d O Centro E s p i r i t a 428 cross-appeal seeking of 1173, or denial to of issue discretion.'" Beneficente 5 Review decision 1176 review certification. a "'[w]e r e v i e w the [ t r i a l ] [ c ] o u r t ' s and 12 the of legal rulings the preliminary Holiday ( A l a . 2008) U n i a o do preliminary Isle, (quoting Vegetal, LLC Gonzales 546 U.S. v. v. 418, (2006)). "A p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n s h o u l d be i s s u e d o n l y when t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g an i n j u n c t i o n d e m o n s t r a t e s : "'"(1) that without the injunction the [ p a r t y ] would s u f f e r i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y ; (2) t h a t t h e [ p a r t y ] h a s no a d e q u a t e r e m e d y at law; (3) t h a t t h e [ p a r t y ] h a s a t l e a s t a reasonable chance of success on the u l t i m a t e m e r i t s o f h i s c a s e ; and (4) t h a t t h e h a r d s h i p i m p o s e d on t h e [ p a r t y o p p o s i n g the preliminary injunction] by the i n j u n c t i o n would not u n r e a s o n a b l y outweigh the b e n e f i t a c c r u i n g to the [ p a r t y seeking the i n j u n c t i o n ] . " ' " A d d i t i o n a l l y , on F e b r u a r y 19, 2 0 1 0 , t h e d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court seeking d i s m i s s a l o f t h e c a s e f o r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n on g r o u n d s o f S t a t e i m m u n i t y and l a c k o f s t a n d i n g . On M a r c h 10, 2 0 1 0 , this Court d i s m i s s e d the p e t i t i o n w i t h o u t a w r i t t e n o p i n i o n . Ex p a r t e C i t i z e n s h i p T r u s t , (No. 1 0 9 0 6 7 6 , M a r c h 10, 2 0 1 0 ) . 5 10 1090545; Holiday 869 1090625 Isle, 12 S o . 3 d a t 1 1 7 6 ( q u o t i n g Ormco C o r p . v . J o h n s , So. 2d 1 1 0 9 , 1113 Tapscan, Inc., Holiday (Ala. 2003), quoting i n turn P e r l e y v. 646 S o . 2 d 5 8 5 , 587 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ( a l t e r a t i o n s i n Isle)). Analysis I. The A p p e a l a n d C r o s s - A p p e a l and T i l l m a n Rule 32.1(a) and With Respect ( c ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., to Keddie-Hill provide: " S u b j e c t t o t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f R u l e 32.2, any d e f e n d a n t who h a s b e e n c o n v i c t e d of a c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e may i n s t i t u t e a p r o c e e d i n g i n the court of o r i g i n a l c o n v i c t i o n t o s e c u r e a p p r o p r i a t e r e l i e f on the ground t h a t : " ( a ) The c o n s t i t u t i o n ... o f t h e S t a t e of Alabama r e q u i r e s ... a new sentence proceeding, or other r e l i e f . fl " ( c ) The s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d e x c e e d s t h e maximum a u t h o r i z e d b y l a w o r i s o t h e r w i s e not a u t h o r i z e d by l a w . " I n t h e u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n , K e d d i e - H i l l a n d T i l l m a n s e e k an o r d e r d e c l a r i n g u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l A c t No. 2 0 0 9 - 7 6 8 , u n d e r w h i c h they (and t h e p u t a t i v e were required injunction c l a s s members t o p a y a $12 remedying DNA the they seek database payment to represent) f e e . They of the seek an allegedly u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l f i n e by o r d e r i n g t h e defendants t o r e f u n d t h e fees or, alternatively, an o r d e r 11 making d i s t r i b u t i o n of those 1090545; fees 1090625 pursuant proceeding criminal 26.11(c) t o the cy pres is a collateral sentences and on Court costs shall procedures proceeding Crim. ( A l a . 1991) they portion they and other ("Docket fees or proceeding purpose other than impeaching B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y Keddie-Hill should n o t be on DNA 237 apply Tillman governed by would on database appeal. Although argue reason rules of procedure to depart might the cost members, from rules that because, than recover o f an any were appeal to Keddie-Hill, that alone the p l a i n or the l e g a l precedent 12 this judgments any p o t e n t i a l monetary b e n e f i t and t h e p u t a t i v e c l a s s an that to prosecute fee they has 1979)."). the usual criminal c o s t more that i s an or overturning the (5th ed. and attacks an a p p e a l might outweigh ... M a n n i n g v . W i n g o , 577 S o . 2 d 8 6 5 , action o f t h e $12 sufficient Rule i n an to prevail Tillman, See or by to c o l l a t e r a l argue, grounds. a t t a c k on a j u d g m e n t However, apply from ("'[A] c o l l a t e r a l made proceeding relief p r o v i d e d h e r e i n f o r nonpayment o f f i n e s s h a l l 867 judgment.' present b e d e e m e d p a r t o f t h e p e n a l t y a n d t h e same nonpayment o f c o s t s . " ) ; independent the s h a l l be a s s e s s e d upon c o n v i c t i o n . for attack P. Thus, to secure constitutional ( j ) , A l a . R. costs i n c r i m i n a l cases doctrine. language i s not a of our c i t e d a b o v e . We have 1090545; held 1090625 that death Rule sentences. 766-67 to possibility including life imprisonment (opinion App. 2000) bars those v. v. Thompson in State, Rule U.S. 32 the death 783 So. 2d postconviction without State, 615 challenge 761 the So. equally penalty 2d Rule to a portion So. 2d 2 66, 268 held repeatedly 8 95 763, on r e h e a r i n g ) . State, apply So. 2d to that the to a l l cases, has been imposed. ( A l a . Cr. App. 1 999); 675 State, 510 v. ("[W]e h a v e i n which State, v. Tarver to v. likewise to a postconviction Nicks denied, applies 1992) Crim. Horsley also Rivera Cf. 805 of sentences cost. challenges 32 e.g., procedural See Rule Dobyne, See, court (Ala. postconviction ( A l a . C r i m . App. 660 a to See, e . g . , Ex p a r t e parole. 32 a p p l i e s of applies ( A l a . 2001). challenges 659, 32 So. 2d 90 8 ( A l a . Cr. App. 1 996); 615 So. 2d 129 ( A l a . Cr. App.), cert. 976, 114 S. Ct. 467, 126 L. Ed. 2d 418 (1993)."). Keddie-Hill 585 and T i l l m a n ( A l a . 1990) (plurality argument that challenge filed the they may DNA database and o t h e r s . Brown opinion), proceed a class action against Montgomery, cite with fee. State, in support a civil In the State The p l a i n t i f f s 13 v. Brown, class the 565 of So. 2d their action to plaintiffs of Alabama, the C i t y of had been c o n v i c t e d of 1090545; traffic Ticket 1090625 offenses b a s e d on i m p r o p e r l y and C o m p l a i n t s ("UTTCs"). c o m p l a i n t was s t y l e d " P e t i t i o n the Alternative Bill v e r i f i e d Uniform 565 S o . 2 d a t 5 8 6 . for Writ Their o f Habeas Corpus o r i n f o r Declaratory Judgment improperly v e r i f i e d UTTC c o n v i c t i o n s e x p u n g e d f r o m t h e r e c o r d s a l l fines and costs paid convictions Court concurred that relief. as refunded to the p l a i n t i f f s . " this sought Other Relief." t o have In i t , "[t]hey or Injunctive and Id. Traffic to affirm The C o u r t a t o have a l l result of the I d . S i xJustices of the t r i a l court's denial of stated: "The m e m b e r s o f t h e p l a i n t i f f c l a s s w e r e p u t t o t r i a l o n , o r p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o , c h a r g e s t o w h i c h no p e r s o n h a d s w o r n on o a t h b e f o r e a judge or other official. They c a n n o t be s a i d t o h a v e w a i v e d t h e d e f e c t , b e c a u s e i t was n o t a p p a r e n t on t h e f a c e o f t h e UTTC t h a t i t was d e f e c t i v e . However, their a t t a c k on t h e j u d g m e n t s i s a c o l l a t e r a l o n e , c o m i n g many y e a r s a f t e r t h e j u d g m e n t s w e r e e n t e r e d . They now s e e k t o h a v e t h e j u d g m e n t s v a c a t e d a n d t h e f i n e s refunded. T h e y c a n n o t p r e v a i l on t h e s e c l a i m s . " 6 565 S o . 2 d a t 590 In light (emphasis o f Brown Rules of Criminal civil proceeding added). and t h e p l a i n language Procedure, we h o l d collaterally that, attacking of t h e Alabama because the this judgments i s a in A l t h o u g h B r o w n was a p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n , t h r e e J u s t i c e s c o n c u r r e d c o m p l e t e l y i n t h e main o p i n i o n , and t h r e e a d d i t i o n a l J u s t i c e s c o n c u r r e d i n t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e main o p i n i o n that included t h i s quote. 6 14 1090545; 1090 62 5 criminal cases, i t f a l l s Crim. So. P. 2d See 772, provides Rule 775 32.1, from a conviction writ of the scope s u p r a ; see ( A l a . 1994) a procedure habeas within also ("Rule of Rule 32, A l a . Ex p a r t e P o w e l l , 32, Ala. R. corpus or a Rule 32 we must t r e a t proceeding. proceeding under writ this Rule [ R u l e 32] of error action coram 32.4, as we Ala. displaces post-conviction seeking r e l i e f shall (emphasis Crim. treated added)); App. petition sought as Ala. R. Crim. We note Temporary a as R i v e r a v. 1992) treated rules be (opinion relief from proceeding on a under 615 So. 2d rehearing) sentence, Rule 32." other P. ("A remedies Any other a conviction under H. this 659, or rule." 660 (Ala. ("[B]ecause the i t s h o u l d have been (citing Rule 32.4, P.)). that, Rules of when t h i s Criminal Court d e c i d e d Brown i n 1990, Procedure c o n t a i n e d c o u n t e r p a r t s to the ( c ) , A l a . R. appeal. a proceeding State, any Crim. from a (1990)."). a l lpost-trial u n d e r R u l e 24 a n d sentence relief nobis. would R. except p o s t - t r i a l motions petition P., p r e v i o u s l y p r o v i d e d by e i t h e r M a d d o x , A l a b a m a R u l e s o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e , § 32.0 Accordingly, 641 Crim. f o r s e c u r i n g the p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n or sentence R. Crim. P. were in effect. current Rule U n l i k e the c u r r e n t Rule 15 Those 32.1(a) 32.1, the and however, 1090545; the 1090625 Temporary prohibit Rules i n place petitions judgments entered proceeding." requires f o rpostconviction i n more t h a n R u l e 32.1, that such prejudice." when B r o w n was d e c i d e d relief a single trial A l a . R. C r i m . P. petitions Accordingly, "shall with the order and the court and Tillman II. without however, dismissed without be respect Keddie-Hill by t h e t r i a l to dismiss and court i s affirmed, t h e c a s e as t o K e d d i e - H i l l prejudice. The P r e l i m i n a r y I n j u n c t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o Hammond a n d Hammond's Cross-Appeal of the Denial of Class Certification As t o the appeal of the i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f Hammond, t h e i s s u e b e f o r e injunction entered injunctive penalty relief i n a i d o f an a c t i o n s e e k i n g grant such p r e l i m i n a r y r e l i e f subject-matter a c t i o n b r o u g h t b y Hammond. interfere through a c i v i l d e c l a r a t o r y and c r i m i n a l proceeding. was not of as t o t h e a l l e g e d u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t yo f a i n Hammond's p e n d i n g without i n favor us i s t h e p r o p r i e t y o f a p r e l i m i n a r y court may or guilty-plea denying c l a s s c e r t i f i c a t i o n i s ordered "multiple R u l e 32.1, Tillman, the preliminary i n j u n c t i o n entered is vacated, from d i d not with action jurisdiction, The trial however, to or to entertain the underlying "The g e n e r a l rule i s that the enforcement of criminal Tyson v. Macon C o u n t y 16 a court laws Greyhound 1090545; Park, 1090625 I n c . , 43 S o . 3 d 587 , 58 9 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t , exceptions not a p p l i c a b l e here, matter j u r i s d i c t i o n that should be forfeiture See 2 2 A Am. i n criminal f o r which J u r . 2d D e c l a r a t o r y judgment w i l l only w o u l d be t o d e c i d e be decided Tyson, subject-matter The injunctive relief matters provided). 57 (2003) (quoted court's with ("A where i t s which properly Accordingly, jurisdiction trial has § matters should approval the t r i a l court in was over t h e a c t i o n brought by order granting preliminary and denying c l a s s c e r t i f i c a t i o n i s due t o be Hammond's a c t i o n , a s w e l l a s t h e p r e s e n t vacated; due Judgments i n a criminal action." Hammond. subject- or related g e n e r a l l y n o t be g r a n t e d 43 S o . 3 d a t 5 8 9 ) ) . without proceedings the legislature declaratory effect are without to adjudicate i nc i v i l proceedings decided actions courts with appeal, are t o be d i s m i s s e d without prejudice. Conclusion The trial injunction is i s reversed, affirmed, dismiss court's the order and t h e case the case without b y Hammond, t h a t 1090545 order appeal issuing denying class i s remanded prejudice. REMANDED. 17 preliminary certification f o rthe t r i a l As t o t h e a p p e a l i s dismissed. -- REVERSED AND the court to brought 1090545; 1090625 1 0 9 0 6 2 5 -- A F F I R M E D I N PART; A P P E A L D I S M I S S E D I N PART. Woodall, Stuart, Murdock, J . , concurs Shaw, Smith, J . , concurs and P a r k e r , J J . , concur. specially. i n the r e s u l t . Cobb, C . J . , c o n c u r s in Bolin, i n the r a t i o n a l e i n part and concurs the r e s u l t . Lyons, from J . , concurs i n the rationale i n part the judgment. 18 and d i s s e n t s 1090545; 1090625 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e Part I of the K e d d i e - H i l l and Rule 32.1, petition more dismissed the may P., trial dismisses that petitioners declaratory not action a postconviction entered relief in I concur i n t h i s d i s m i s s a l , and contemplated seeking the such in be without properly that again future relief for opinion. 19 the in this to the seek 32, would prejudice Ala. be to case structured petition, under Rule jurisdiction main a might a in be however, hereafter subject-matter I I of note, that ... d i s m i s s a l should I the ground g u i l t y - p l e a proceeding prejudice." pursued Kathleen judgments "multiple or Mary c a s e b e l o w on requires from be proceeding. Part opinion t h o s e p e t i t i o n e r s have sought r e l i e f hereafter an Crim. single specially). Tillman's relief without I agree that relief R. seeking a main Cheryl Ala. than extent (concurring Rule extent injunctive not only is R. Crim. P., beyond reasons this the that 32 the or such but Court's described in 1090545; 1090625 COBB, C h i e f concurring As Justice (concurring i n t h e r a t i o n a l e i n p a r t and i n the result). to the dismissal of the c i v i l Hammond, I concur i n the result. charged with crime, subsequently a sue a a c t i o n brought by J u s t i n I am c o n v i n c e d criminal f o r declaratory or that, once may not defendant injunctive relief to resolve i s s u e s t h a t a r e p r o p e r l y t o be d e c i d e d i n thecriminal action. Cf. Gulf Shores, 2d 1 0 6 1 , 1064 granted when Trimble v. (holding (Ala. ... City that H o u s e A s s ' n v . Town o f G u l f there of action ordinance during Therefore, be I agree validity I am database decided that 2d prosecution Further, o f t h e DNA So. remedy in Hammond's be law."); ( A l a . 1983) a declaratoryof a of the convinced municipal plaintiff that f e e i s an i s s u e Hammond's civil at 745 not maintain the the pending constitutionality properly 438 could contesting injunction will adequate Prichard, the ordinance). should i s no a plaintiff judgment under 1 9 8 5 ) ("A p e r m a n e n t 484 S o . criminal action the that case. i s due t o be dismissed. However, I cannot concur i n the majority's Tyson v . Macon C o u n t y G r e y h o u n d P a r k , 2010), 43 S o . 3 d 5 8 7 , 5 8 9 ( A l a . as i t s r a t i o n a l e f o r d i s m i s s i n g 20 r e l i a n c e on Hammond's claims f o r 1090545; 1090625 declaratory relief for lack of j u r i s d i c t i o n . J u s t i c e Woodall's dissent J., dissenting), decided. disclaimed contends i n T y s o n , 43 S o . 3 d a t 592 a n d , i n my Further, Tyson view, contained the statute Subsequently, i n Chorba-Lee Hale, [Ms. 10 9 0 5 8 5 , September this Court declaratory indistinguishable legal dicta issue Scholarship 20, 2010] relief Fund, So. 3d o f an a c t i o n that was from Tyson, except t h a t , v. (Ala. seeking substantively i n Chorba-Lee, the plaintiffs' conduct, but the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v a l i d i t y of a law under which a prosecutor understanding actions 3d at not Inc. of the i n Chorba-Lee was expressly 43 S o . 3 d a t the merits decided that "the p l a i n t i f f reached be incorrectly legality concurred to (Woodall, i n which injunctive and was with i s void." at issue 589. 2010), Tyson i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to cases that I concurred the had threatened without the time that to bring writing Tyson charges. i t was because expressly t o e n j o i n enforcement o f a v o i d law. I my permitted S e e T y s o n , 43 S o . a t 589-90. Unlike declaratory Hammond the p l a i n t i f f judgment simply seeks as i n Tyson, Hammond to the legality to r e l i e f from 21 a does of l a w he not seek a h i s conduct. contends i s 1090545; 1090 62 5 unconstitutional and void. Therefore, i n my view, Tyson i s with the Court's opinion. distinguishable. In a l l o t h e r r e s p e c t s , I concur 22 1090545; LYONS, 1090625 Justice dissenting I its concur claims As of to that in the rationale in part and judgment). the order issue, I o f the main denying dissent of from opinion except f o r certification of the judgment. a The o f Mary K a t h l e e n K e d d i e - H i l l and C h e r y l T i l l m a n a r e not cognizable Civil the i n a l laspects affirmance class. R. from (concurring in a civil Procedure; Crim. dismissed P., action they are cognizable proceeding. without The subject Each c l a i m prejudice Crim. P. dismissal class of pursuant the certification. 23 t o the Alabama Rules only 32, A l a . i n a Rule i s therefore to Rule action moots due 32.1, the of t o be A l a . R. issue of

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.