City of Huntsville v. Neal

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

City of Huntsville v. Neal

675 So. 2d 531, 1995 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1055, 1995 WL 714824

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedDecember 5, 1995

DocketCR-95-173

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 675 So. 2d 531 (City of Huntsville v. Neal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Huntsville v. Neal, 675 So. 2d 531, 1995 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1055, 1995 WL 714824 (Ala. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

TAYLOR, Presiding Judge.

The petitioner, Randolph E. Neal, Jr., filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the Honorable Jeri Blankenship, circuit judge for the twenty-third judicial circuit, to set aside her order granting the city’s motion to consolidate two cases against him. The petitioner was charged in the municipal court of Huntsville with speeding and with driving while his license was suspended. The petitioner appealed de novo to circuit court and the city filed a motion requesting that the two charges be consolidated for trial. The circuit court granted the city’s motion without notifying the petitioner or giving him an opportunity to be heard. The petitioner then filed this petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that this court direct the circuit court to set aside its ruling consolidating the eases and allow him an opportunity to be heard on the city’s request to consolidate the charges against him.

“Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ, to be issued only where there is a clear legal right to the relief sought by the petitioner.” Ex parte Clark, 643 So.2d 977, 978 (Ala.1994). Such a right exists in this case.

All parties agree that the petitioner was not given notice of the fact that the city had filed a motion to consolidate the charges. Rule 13.3(c), Ala.R.Crim.P., states in part: “[T]he court shall not order that the offenses ... be tried together without first providing the defendant or defendants and the prosecutor an opportunity to be heard.” (Emphasis added.) This rule is mandatory and requires strict compliance. Noncompliance results in reversal error. Ex parte Jones, 473 So.2d 545 (Ala.1985).

For the foregoing reasons, this petition for a writ of mandamus is due to be granted.

PETITION GRANTED.

All the Judges concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TAYLOR, Presiding Judge.

The petitioner, Randolph E. Neal, Jr., filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the Honorable Jeri Blankenship, circuit judge for the twenty-third judicial circuit, to set aside her order granting the city’s motion to consolidate two cases against him. The petitioner was charged in the municipal court of Huntsville with speeding and with driving while his license was suspended. The petitioner appealed de novo to circuit court and the city filed a motion requesting that the two charges be consolidated for trial. The circuit court granted the city’s motion without notifying the petitioner or giving him an opportunity to be heard. The petitioner then filed this petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that this court direct the circuit court to set aside its ruling consolidating the eases and allow him an opportunity to be heard on the city’s request to consolidate the charges against him.

“Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ, to be issued only where there is a clear legal right to the relief sought by the petitioner.” Ex parte Clark, 643 So.2d 977, 978 (Ala.1994). Such a right exists in this case.

All parties agree that the petitioner was not given notice of the fact that the city had filed a motion to consolidate the charges. Rule 13.3(c), Ala.R.Crim.P., states in part: “[T]he court shall not order that the offenses ... be tried together without first providing the defendant or defendants and the prosecutor an opportunity to be heard.” (Emphasis added.) This rule is mandatory and requires strict compliance. Noncompliance results in reversal error. Ex parte Jones, 473 So.2d 545 (Ala.1985).

For the foregoing reasons, this petition for a writ of mandamus is due to be granted.

PETITION GRANTED.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

675 So. 2d 531, 1995 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1055, 1995 WL 714824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-huntsville-v-neal-alacrimapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack