top of page

The Supreme Court of Alabama Affirms Dismissal of Defendant's Petition for Postconviction Relief, Holding that...a Judge's Appointment by a Recused Judge Does Not Destroy...Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Ex parte Files

By John A. Graves


In Ex parte Files, the Supreme Court of Alabama considered whether a judge’s orders were due to be vacated because the court allegedly lacked subject-matter jurisdiction when improperly appointed by a recused judge.  Defendant David Eugene Files, after receiving a sentence of life in prison, filed a Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief, arguing that because the sentencing judge was appointed by a judge who had previously recused himself, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.  The Supreme Court of Alabama ultimately disagreed with Files and affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of Files’s petition stating that the appointment of the judge, while unethical, had no impact on the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Walker County Circuit Court (Walker Circuit Court) to decide his case.

In 2002, Files was indicted for the murder of Carlie Little; the case was assigned to Judge James Brotherton, the presiding judge of the Walker Circuit Court. Following a “heated disagreement” between Judge Brotherton and Files’s counsel, Files filed a motion, that was later granted, seeking to recuse Judge Brotherton. Subsequently, Judge Brotherton appointed Judge Jimmy D. Wells to Files’s case pursuant to Rule 13(A) of the Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration (Rule 13). Files then filed another motion seeking Judge Wells’s recusal, which was also granted. Judge Brotherton finally appointed Judge Larry Lapkovitch to preside over Files’s case. At trial, Files was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison, and importantly, Files did not challenge Judge Lapkovitch’s assignment at trial or on direct appeal.



Kommentare


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page