From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lucas v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
Mar 13, 1992
597 So. 2d 759 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)

Summary

reversing order denying IFP status when “there has never been any more than $31.47 in the [prisoner's] account at any one time” and the filing fee was $95

Summary of this case from Cook v. Bentley (Ex parte Cook)

Opinion

CR 91-330.

March 13, 1992.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Mobile County, Robert E.L. Key, J.

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.


Summaries of

Lucas v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
Mar 13, 1992
597 So. 2d 759 (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 time” and the filing fee was $95

Summary of this case from Cook v. Bentley (Ex parte Cook)

reversing denial of IFP status when "there has never been any more than $31.47 in the petitioner's account at any one time" and the filing fee was $95

Summary of this case from State v. Robey (In re Robey)

reversing denial of IFP status when “there has neverbeen any more than $31.47 in the petitioner's account at any one time” and the filing fee was $95

Summary of this case from Ex parte Robey

In Lucas this Court stated: "[T]he 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."

Summary of this case from James v. State
Case details for

Lucas v. State

Case Details

Full title:Hiram Paul LUCAS v. STATE

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Mar 13, 1992

Citations

597 So. 2d 759 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)

Citing Cases

State v. Wyre

Judge Wilters did not abuse his discretion in denying Wyre's IFP request based on Wyre's inmate-account…

State v. Robey (In re Robey)

The Court of Criminal Appeals was responsive to these complaints. See Lucas v. State, 597 So. 2d 759, 760…