From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Powell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
Dec 29, 1995
674 So. 2d 1259 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995)

Summary

reversing order denying IFP status when prisoner had $1.00 in his inmate trust account when he attempted to file the petition, the filing fee was $110, and thus “it appear[ed] that the [prisoner was] indigent”

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

Opinion

CR-93-2008.

September 29, 1995. As Corrected on Denial of Rehearing December 29, 1995.

Appeal from the Mobile Circuit Court, Robert Byrd, J.

Michael Lamar Powell, pro se.

James H. Evans and Jeff Sessions, Attys. Gen., and Robin Blevins, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Appellee.


AFTER REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA


The appellant, Michael Lamar Powell, appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., and the trial court's denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We affirmed the trial court's actions in an unpublished memorandum. Powell v. State, 668 So.2d 934 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994) (table), holding that the court's finding of indigency was moot because the trial court stated that the petition was barred by the limitations period. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed our judgment, stating that the petition was not barred by the limitations period and that, therefore, the trial court's finding that the appellant was not indigent was not rendered moot. The Alabama Supreme Court instructed this court to determine whether the trial court had erred in denying the appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Ex parte Powell, 674 So.2d 1258 (Ala. 1995).

The trial court denied the appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis without explanation. The "In Forma Pauperis Declaration" filed with the trial court shows that the appellant had only $1.00 in his prison account when he attempted to file his post-conviction petition. Currently the docketing fee for filing a petition for post-conviction relief in a circuit court is $110.00. § 12-19-71(3), Code of Alabama 1975 (Supp. 1994). From the very slight information contained in the record it appears that the appellant is indigent.

The trial court's denial of the appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is reversed. This cause is therefore remanded to the Circuit Court for Mobile County so that the appellant may be allowed to file his post-conviction petition without paying the docketing fee, Robinson v. State, 629 So.2d 5 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993); Lucas v. State, 597 So.2d 759 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), or for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.


Summaries of

Powell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
Dec 29, 1995
674 So. 2d 1259 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995)

reversing order denying IFP status when prisoner had $1.00 in his inmate trust account when he attempted to file the petition, the filing fee was $110, and thus “it appear[ed] that the [prisoner was] indigent”

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

reversing denial of IFP status when prisoner had $1.00 in his prison account when he attempted to file the petition, the filing fee was $110, and thus "it appear[ed] that the appellant [was] indigent"

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

reversing denial of IFP status when prisoner had $1.00 in his prison account when he attempted to file the petition, the filing fee was $110, and thus “it appear[ed] that the appellant [was] indigent”

Summary of this case from Ex parte Robey
Case details for

Powell v. State

Case Details

Full title:Michael Lamar POWELL v. STATE

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Dec 29, 1995

Citations

674 So. 2d 1259 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995)

Citing Cases

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…

Ex parte Robey

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