Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

862 So. 2d 594

Boykins v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Decided April 25, 2003

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · decided 2003-04-25

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 2008

10 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"to address the question whether the Court of Criminal Appeals properly affirmed the trial court's order of dismissal where the basis of the dismissal was the trial court's treatment of Boykins's petition for a writ of certiorari as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus."”

quoted by 8 later decisions, including Collins v. ALABAMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, Gerthoffer v. ALABAMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

“"[S]hould an appeal be taken from the Montgomery Circuit Court's judgment, the appeal should be filed with the Court of Civil Appeals, because Boykins's case would be an appeal from an administrative agency, see § 12-3-10 , Ala. Code 1975, rather than an appeal from a postconviction writ in a criminal case."”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including Collins v. ALABAMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, Gerthoffer v. ALABAMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

Relies on 862 So. 2d 587 - Ex Parte Boykins · 628 So. 2d 1075 - Cox v. State · 859 So. 2d 449 - Pinkard v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2003-04-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

¶2In accordance with the holding in Ex parte Boykins, [Ms. 1011152, December 20, 2002] 862 So.2d 587 (Ala. 2002), the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and this cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of Bullock County. *595

¶3We note, however, that because the Supreme Court determined that Boykins's petition challenging the denial by the Department of Corrections ("DOC") of his request to earn incentive good time was improperly treated as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, rather than as a petition for a writ of certiorari, the Bullock Circuit Court no longer has jurisdiction to determine the merits of Boykins's petition. A petition for writ of habeas corpus is properly filed in the circuit court nearest to where the petitioner is incarcerated. See § 15-21-7, Ala. Code 1975. However, a petition for writ of certiorari against an administrative agency, in this instance, DOC, should be filed in "the Circuit Court of Montgomery County or in the circuit court of the county in which the agency maintains its headquarters." § 41-22-20(b), Ala. Code 1975. See also § 6-3-9, Ala. Code 1975. Because DOC maintains its headquarters in Montgomery County, Boykins's petition should have been filed in Montgomery County. See Pinkard v. State, [Ms. CR-01-1905, March 21, 2003] 859 So.2d 449 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003); Cox v. State, 628 So.2d 1075 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993). Accordingly, on remand the Bullock Circuit Court should transfer Boykins's petition to Montgomery Circuit Court so that that court may properly determine the merits of Boykins's certiorari petition. Finally, we note that should an appeal be taken from the Montgomery Circuit Court's judgment, the appeal should be filed with the Court of Civil Appeals, because Boykins's case would be an appeal from an administrative agency, see § 12-3-10, Ala. Code 1975, rather than an appeal from a postconviction writ in a criminal case.

¶4REVERSED AND REMANDED.

¶5McMILLAN, P.J., and BASCHAB, J., concur. SHAW, J., concurs in the result, with opinion, which COBB, J., joins.

¶6

¶7I concur in reversing the judgment of the circuit court and remanding this case with instructions that it be transferred to Montgomery County. However, I express no opinion with respect to the following dicta in the majority opinion:

¶8 "Finally, we note that should an appeal be taken from the Montgomery Circuit Court's judgment, the appeal should be filed with the Court of Civil Appeals, because Boykins's case would be an appeal from an administrative agency, see § 12-3-10, Ala. Code 1975, rather than an appeal from a post-conviction writ in a criminal case."

¶9862 So.2d at 595.

/862/so2d/594 · .json · Public domain