Jeffrey Scott Gibson v. State of Alabama (Appeal from Winston Circuit Court:CV-10-38)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/29/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090825 J e f f r e y S c o t t Gibson v. S t a t e o f Alabama 2090826 James Hezzie Sparks v. S t a t e o f Alabama APPEALS 2090827 Johnny Dale Lane v. S t a t e o f Alabama 2090829 David A l a n Hampton v. S t a t e o f Alabama 2090830 Tony E l l i s v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeals from Winston C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-38, CV-10-39, CV-10-40, CV-10-41, and CV-10-42) PER CURIAM. 2 2090825, 2090826, 2090827, Jeffrey Scott David Alan Lane, Gibson, referred incarcerated i n the to each James Hampton, collectively related 2090829, to Winston 2090830 Hezzie and as and Tony "the County Sparks, Ellis Johnny (hereinafter petitioners") jail petitioner's failure on to are contempt pay D. child each orders support. Judge M i c h a e l N e w e l l , a c t i n g as a j u v e n i l e c o u r t j u d g e f o r the Winston Gibson, Lane, as Juvenile and Ellis o r d e r e d by result, has entered i n contempt the court, incarcerated incarcerated presided Circuit for failure and he over Court since since October August 17, domestic-relations ("the support, arrested. and None finding t o pay child support arrested. ordered each circuit Sparks Hampton of pursuant and the has he has been ordered been As 2009. appealed incarcerated. 3 Ellis he the has also Winston found Sparks t o pay c o u r t - o r d e r e d those since and in a 2009, Lane Judge N e w e l l actions incarcerated incarcerated they are 2009, failure that petitioners timely to which 21, c o u r t " ) i n which and Hampton i n c o n t e m p t f o r t h e i r child judgments G i b s o n h a s b e e n i n c a r c e r a t e d s i n c e J u l y 24, been been Court, two since petitioners be late May 2009, November 23, 2009. the contempt orders 2090825, The 2090826, record 2090827, accrued payment of 25% documenting those April actions by conditions 12, 2010, filing that petitions he was of the the i n the for unable i s no p e t i t i o n e r s each court their release pay relief, the release written order release. circuit habeas to There for o f f e r e d to amount o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s arrearage. of habeas corpus seeking those 2090830 f o r e a c h p e t i t i o n e r and child-support On and i n d i c a t e s t h a t , i n December 2009, Judge N e w e l l conducted a hearing each upon the 2090829, initiated a petition new for a writ from i n c a r c e r a t i o n . each amount petitioner required to In alleged secure his freedom. The who, habeas p e t i t i o n s were a s s i g n e d on of the A p r i l 16, 2010, conducted a j o i n t habeas p e t i t i o n s . At only arguments of counsel the but p e t i t i o n e r argued that with the release, d i d not alleged have the for his e f f e c t of inability incarceration, under to hearing, d i d not Each terms t o Judge John he that comply, the facts, rights. 4 on a l l five Judge B e n t l e y take ore lacked coercing hearing Bentley, the tenus ability continued heard evidence. to comply incarceration compliance because of and that violated the his his continued due-process 2090825, 2090829, and F o l l o w i n g t h e h e a r i n g , on A p r i l 23, each 2090826, filed alter, 2090827, a purported Rule 59, 5, five 2010, A l a . R. the Civ. petitioners P., motion 2010, actions on the habeas p e t i t i o n s . Judge B e n t l e y e n t e r e d judgments f o r a purported l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n because of the d i s m i s s a l Judge N e w e l l Rather, circuit statute." matter the 2 "Court judge has no i n these matters Each p e t i t i o n e r fail to the One pursuant appealed; this appeals. address s h o u l d have been petitioners On jurisdiction. appeals of the d e n i a l of t h e i r habeas petitioners this & as c o n s o l i d a t e d the In t h e i r that orders stated: sits t o Admin. Order c o u r t has 1 dismissing a l l habeas p e t i t i o n s had not been c o n s i d e r e d by Judge N e w e l l . the to amend, o r v a c a t e a j u d g m e n t , a l t h o u g h J u d g e B e n t l e y h a d not yet i s s u e d judgments r u l i n g May 2090830 argue the circuit addressed only that the petitions, court's finding to Judge Newell. "circuit court" A v a l i d p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., may b e t a k e n o n l y i n r e f e r e n c e t o a f i n a l judgment. 1 Each of the judgments denying the w r i t s f o r habeas r e l i e f i s h a n d w r i t t e n on t h e p u r p o r t e d p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f i l e d i n each a c t i o n . The j u d g m e n t i n c a s e n o . C V - 1 0 - 3 8 p e r t a i n i n g t o Gibson i s quoted i n the opinion. The other dismissal j u d g m e n t s each deny t h e p e t i t i o n s by r e f e r e n c i n g t h e o r d e r entered i n the a c t i o n p e r t a i n i n g to Gibson. 2 5 2090825, has 2090826, jurisdiction actions. in 2090827, habeas a n d 2090830 petitions arising U n d e r § 15-21-6, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , the county jurisdiction requires Section over 2090829, i n which the petitioners in civil the c i r c u i t court a r e i n c a r c e r a t e d has t o c o n s i d e r t h e habeas p e t i t i o n s ; t h a t that the petition 15-21-6 be a d d r e s s e d section to a circuit judge. specifies: " ( a ) When t h e p e r s o n i s c o n f i n e d i n a c o u n t y j a i l o r a n y o t h e r p l a c e on a c h a r g e o f f e l o n y o r u n d e r a commitment o r an i n d i c t m e n t f o r f e l o n y , t h e petition f o r a writ of habeas corpus must be addressed t o the nearest c i r c u i t court judge. "(b) When the person i s confined i n the p e n i t e n t i a r y or under a sentence, judgment or order of t h e supreme c o u r t o r t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , other t h a n an i n d i c t m e n t f o r f e l o n y , t h e p e t i t i o n must be addressed t o the nearest c i r c u i t court judge. "(c) I n a l l o t h e r c a s e s , i t may b e a d d r e s s e d t o a n y one o f them, a n d when t h e p e r s o n i s c o n f i n e d i n any other place than the county jail or the penitentiary a n d on a n y o t h e r than a criminal c h a r g e , i t may b e a d d r e s s e d t o a n y c i r c u i t court judge." (Emphasis All added.) circuit habeas corpus. 2006). In Ex c o u r t s have t h e a u t h o r i t y to issue a writ of E x p a r t e C u l b r e t h , 966 S o . 2 d 9 1 0 , 912 ( A l a . parte Culbreth, supra, our supreme court e x p l a i n e d t h a t § 15-21-6 i m p l i c a t e s t h e i s s u e o f p r o p e r venue, 6 2090825, rather 2090826, 2090827, than j u r i s d i c t i o n . 2090829, "Venue and ... 2090830 addresses '[t]he or other t e r r i t o r y over which a t r i a l c o u r t has Black's Law ed. Culbreth, failed the Dictionary 966 So. 2d a t 912. to demonstrate basis court of had venue, erred petition. this court lacked based on § (8th our supreme dismissing Culbreth, court, the jurisdiction jurisdiction.' 2004)." Ex had p r o p e r l y court the held parte the In t h a t case, because that the State in Ex p a r t e Before 1591 county record objected that the on trial petitioner's habeas supra. State to argues consider 15-21-23, A l a . Code 1975, the which that the habeas circuit petitions provides: "On t h e r e t u r n o f a w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s , no c o u r t or j u d g e has a u t h o r i t y t o i n q u i r e i n t o the r e g u l a r i t y o r j u s t i c e o f any o r d e r , j u d g m e n t , d e c r e e any o r p r o c e s s o f any cour t l e g a l l y c o n s t i t u t e d , n o r i n t o the j u s t i c e o r p r o p r i e t y o f any commitment f o r c o n t e m p t made b y a c o u r t , o f f i c e r o r b o d y a c c o r d i n g t o law and c h a r g e d i n such commitment." The State contends because, i t says, contempt orders incarcerated. Appeals has that the the c i r c u i t pursuant habeas petitions must c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n to which the over petitioners fail the are In e x p l a i n i n g § 15-21-23, the C o u r t of C r i m i n a l stated: "A p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s b a s i s f o r r e l i e f from imprisonment or 7 f u r n i s h e s no detention i f 2090825, 2090826, 2090827, 2090829, and 2090830 and when the petition or application clearly d i s c l o s e s as t h e c a u s e o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s d e t e n t i o n or imprisonment, t h a t the court r e n d e r i n g judgment o f c o n v i c t i o n and s e n t e n c e was acting within i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n i n r e n d e r i n g such judgment." B o y k i n v. State, However, contempt habeas 432 the orders So. on 17, themselves. the 19 ( A l a . C r i m . App. petitioners in this petitions that, release 2d in contempt case Rather, setting orders, do not attack contend in their conditions of their they the Judge Newell p e r m i s s i b l e j u r i s d i c t i o n by i s s u i n g t h e o r d e r s continued, function allegedly of unlawful habeas corpus i s to provide L o o n e y v. 1063 (quoting 2d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 270, 271 Hanberry, We (Ala. Crim. 592 F.2d conclude properly 2002) invoke App. 248, 249 that the the 1984), Taylor of the venue under § 15-21-6 i s p r o p e r i n the Judge Bentley, the habeas Judge Bentley erred Accordingly, in dismissing 8 the from v. sole unlawful So. 2d State, i n turn habeas circuit circuit a s a c i r c u i t c o u r t j u d g e , may petitions. his 1061, 455 So. Cook v. 1979)). petitioners' jurisdiction "'"[T]he 881 quoting (5th C i r . exceeded relief State, the requiring their incarceration. imprisonment or custody."'" 1983). we petitions court, court, properly must and that that consider conclude habeas p e t i t i o n s . that We 2090825, reverse 2090826, 2090827, 2090829, the judgments of d i s m i s s a l Judge B e n t l e y and 2090830 remand t o c o n d u c t an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g petitions. R E V E R S E D AND All and REMANDED. the judges concur. 9 the cause f o r on t h e h a b e a s

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.