Dexter v. State

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Dexter v. State

842 So. 2d 717, 2002 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 656, 2002 WL 1880699

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedAugust 16, 2002

Docket2010895

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 842 So. 2d 717 (Dexter v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dexter v. State, 842 So. 2d 717, 2002 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 656, 2002 WL 1880699 (Ala. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

On May 23, 2001, the trial court entered a judgment in which it found William Michael Dexter not guilty by reason of insanity on charges of assault. In that same judgment, the trial court ordered that Dexter be involuntarily committed to the custody of the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation for treatment. Dexter was confined at Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility.

On February 22, 2002, Dexter, acting pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he alleged that he no longer met the requirements under § 22-52-37, Ala.Code 1975, for civil commit[718]*718ment. The trial court denied Dexter’s petition. Dexter appealed to this court.

In his brief on appeal, Dexter contends, among other things, that he would like to enter a plea of not guilty to the charges lodged against him (apparently the assault charges), and that his confinement has caused him to suffer from claustrophobia. However, Dexter’s brief on appeal contains no citations to supporting legal authority, in contravention of Rule 28, Ala. R.App. P. Although this court is not unsympathetic to a pro se litigant such as Dexter, he must, nonetheless, comply with legal procedures and court rules in the same manner as a litigant represented by counsel. Jones v. Seibert, 624 So.2d 689 (Ala.Civ.App.1993); Bowman v. Pat’s Auto Parts, 504 So.2d 736 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). “The operation of the courts of this state is governed by rules which are no more forgiving to a pro se litigant than to one represented by counsel.” Black v. Allen, 587 So.2d 349, 349 (Ala.Civ.App.1991).

Dexter’s failure to comply with Rule 28, Ala. R.App. P. leaves this court with nothing to review; we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. Sullivan v. Alfa. Mut. Ins. Co., 656 So.2d 1233 (Ala.Civ.App.1995).

AFFIRMED.

YATES, P.J., and THOMPSON and PITTMAN, JJ., concur. CRAWLEY, J., concurs specially.

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

PER CURIAM.

On May 23, 2001, the trial court entered a judgment in which it found William Michael Dexter not guilty by reason of insanity on charges of assault. In that same judgment, the trial court ordered that Dexter be involuntarily committed to the custody of the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation for treatment. Dexter was confined at Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility.

On February 22, 2002, Dexter, acting pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he alleged that he no longer met the requirements under § 22-52-37, Ala.Code 1975, for civil commit[718]*718ment. The trial court denied Dexter’s petition. Dexter appealed to this court.

In his brief on appeal, Dexter contends, among other things, that he would like to enter a plea of not guilty to the charges lodged against him (apparently the assault charges), and that his confinement has caused him to suffer from claustrophobia. However, Dexter’s brief on appeal contains no citations to supporting legal authority, in contravention of Rule 28, Ala. R.App. P. Although this court is not unsympathetic to a pro se litigant such as Dexter, he must, nonetheless, comply with legal procedures and court rules in the same manner as a litigant represented by counsel. Jones v. Seibert, 624 So.2d 689 (Ala.Civ.App.1993); Bowman v. Pat’s Auto Parts, 504 So.2d 736 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). “The operation of the courts of this state is governed by rules which are no more forgiving to a pro se litigant than to one represented by counsel.” Black v. Allen, 587 So.2d 349, 349 (Ala.Civ.App.1991).

Dexter’s failure to comply with Rule 28, Ala. R.App. P. leaves this court with nothing to review; we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. Sullivan v. Alfa. Mut. Ins. Co., 656 So.2d 1233 (Ala.Civ.App.1995).

AFFIRMED.

YATES, P.J., and THOMPSON and PITTMAN, JJ., concur. CRAWLEY, J., concurs specially.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

842 So. 2d 717, 2002 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 656, 2002 WL 1880699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dexter-v-state-alacivapp-2002.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack