rel:

06/29/2012

N o t i c e : This 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 before 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 Courts, 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 .

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012

1110793 Ex p a r t e Amy B i s h o p Anderson

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: S t a t e o f Alabama v. Amy B i s h o p (Madison C i r c u i t PER CURIAM. Amy mandamus Bishop Anderson petitions this Court Court for a writ of t o compel t h e Anderson) CC-11-1131)

Court,

directing

t h e Madison

Circuit

1110793 Office Office circuit to of Indigent Defense Services and the Comptroller's with the of fees

within

the Department orders

of Finance

t o comply

court's

and d i s b u r s e We

i n t e r i m payments

Bishop's I.

retained experts. F a c t u a l Background was indicted after

deny t h e p e t i t i o n . History murder and colleagues

and P r o c e d u r a l

Anderson attempted

on c h a r g e s

of capital of her

murder

she shot

several

during a biology-department of Alabama

f a c u l t y meeting at theU n i v e r s i t y February 2, 2010. Anderson's

i n H u n t s v i l l e on have served i s not g u i l t y

defense that

counsel

notice that they by reason

i n t e n d t o argue disease or

Anderson

of mental

defect. On granting expenses. retain the May 23, 2011, t h e c i r c u i t counsel's circuit ex parte court motion entered an order

defense The

for extraordinary counsel Dr. to

court of a who

authorized

defense

services as an

neuropsychiatrist, would evaluate

James and

Merikangas, ordered

expert

Anderson

t h e c o m p t r o l l e r t o make i m m e d i a t e p a y m e n t t o c o v e r D r . According with t o Anderson, Dr. Merikangas a reasonable No payment expectation made of

Merikangas's retainer. began being working paid

on t h e c a s e later

at a

date.

was

by t h e

1110793 comptroller However, i n response to the circuit counsel court's received a order. letter

on J u l y

11, 2011, defense

from t h e c o m p t r o l l e r t h a t s t a t e d : "I've reviewed the court order for interim payment o f expenses i n t h e above m a t t e r and, w h i l e the State Comptroller takes court orders quite s e r i o u s l y , we a r e b o u n d b y e x i s t i n g s t a t u t e s a n d r u l e s when a u t h o r i z i n g e x p e n d i t u r e s f r o m t h e F a i r Trial Tax Fund. Alabama l a w does not permit p r e p a y m e n t o r i n t e r i m p a y m e n t t o members o f t h e defense team o r t o e x p e r t s . The Code o f A l a b a m a [1975], 15-12-21(e) s t a t e s , i n pertinent part, 'Preapproved e x p e r t f e e s s h a l l be b i l l e d a t t h e t i m e the c o u r t i s n o t i f i e d t h a t a l l work by t h e e x p e r t has been completed, and s h a l l be p a i d forthwith. Once an e x p e r t h a s b e e n p a i d f o r s e r v i c e s on a p a r t i c u l a r case, t h a t e x p e r t s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d t o r e c e i v e f u r t h e r payment on t h e c a s e . ' I n order t o seek payment o f e x p e r t f e e s , t h e e x p e r t must have f u l l y concluded h i s o r h e r work i n t h e case. There i s no l e g a l a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e payment o f e x p e r t f e e s b e f o r e t h a t e x p e r t ' s work has been completed. " T h i s code s e c t i o n has been r e v i s e d e f f e c t i v e J u n e 14, 2 0 1 1 , t o a l l o w i n t e r i m p a y m e n t s ; however prepayment i n t h e form o f a r e t a i n e r s t i l l cannot be made."
1

Attachment C to Anderson's p e t i t i o n for a writ of mandamus i s a June 1 6 , 2 0 1 1 , memorandum i s s u e d by the comptroller t o a l ljudges and l a w y e r s , a d v i s i n g them t h a t revisions t o 15-12-21, A l a . Code 1975, were effective immediately and t h a t changes t o t h e s t a t u t e i n c l u d e d t h e following:
1

"Expert fees shall remain reimbursable, i f reasonable and approved i n advance by t h e t r i a l c o u r t as n e c e s s a r y . 3

1110793 Because Dr. was that she Merikangas's initial assessment and of Anderson

suffered

from a mental disease further testing, seeking circuit

neurological filed On and

injuries another

that required ex parte 27,

defense counsel expenses. authorized

motion the

extraordinary court again ordered

September

2011,

p r e a p p r o v e d e x t r a o r d i n a r y e x p e n s e s and of those expenses. at the University by Dr. The of

i n t e r i m payment fee for testing ("UAB

2

expenses i n c l u d e d the Alabama at Birmingham

Hospital

Hospital") The an order

D a v i d C l a r k , a n e u r o l o g i s t a t UAB Clark provide defense

Hospital.

r e q u i r e d t h a t Dr. of his

defense counsel submit the by

with fee the

estimate

fee; that

counsel

estimate circuit 15

to the

circuit

c o u r t ; and

t h a t , upon a p p r o v a l

c o u r t , t h e c o m p t r o l l e r make t h e i n t e r i m p a y m e n t w i t h i n

days. On December been 9, 2011, by after the the estimate court, of Dr. Clark's counsel

fee

had

approved

circuit

defense

II

" I n t e r i m payments f o r a t t o r n e y fees and/or may be authorized by the Director of Defense S e r v i c e s . " A c c o r d i n g t o A n d e r s o n , UAB time of s e r v i c e .
2

expenses Indigent payment at

Hospital requires

the

1110793 moved f o r payment a c c o r d i n g 27, 2011, order. The c i r c u i t to the c i r c u i t court ordered t o defense court's court's September

the comptroller to counsel December within 9 15

disburse days.

t h e i n t e r i m payment

In response

to the circuit

order,

the O f f i c e o f Indigent Defense S e r v i c e s wrote defense advising because such that there the interim were payment would n o t be by which

counsel, disbursed t o make

no p r o c e d u r e s

i n place

payments. Anderson attached two e x p a r t e Effective motions entitled "Notice to

of her

Inability petition

to Provide for a

Assistance In

of Counsel" those to

writ

o f mandamus. they were

motions, provide had

defense

counsel

indicated that of counsel

unable

effective failed

assistance

because

the comptroller orders

t o comply w i t h 27, be

the circuit 7,

court's

o f May 2 3 , interim counsel merely

September payments sought provided

and December

2011, o r d e r i n g experts. parte

that

made

t o Anderson's i n those "they ex

Defense they

no

relief

motions;

notice that with

[were] p r e s e n t l y u n a b l e t o p r o v i d e assistance of counsel." a petition f o ra w r i t sought

[Anderson]

effective

On J a n u a r y 3 0 , 2 0 1 2 , A n d e r s o n f i l e d

o f mandamus w i t h t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s a n d a l s o

1110793 a stay of the proceedings i n the c i r c u i t petition court pending the court. by an The order failed That

consideration Court dated to

o f h e r mandamus appeals

by that

of Criminal March

denied

the petition

8, 2 0 1 2 , b e c a u s e , a clear legal

i t s t a t e d , Anderson had to the r e l i e f to stay. sought.

establish

right

court

also denied

Anderson's motion

Anderson subsequently mandamus Indigent "compel[ling]

p e t i t i o n e d t h i s Court respondents at

f o ra writ of the O f f i c e of

named

Defense S e r v i c e s and t h e C o m p t r o l l e r ' s O f f i c e of Finance to disburse interim

i n the as

Department

payments

previously ordered and December 7,

by t h e t r i a l

c o u r t o n May 2 3 , S e p t e m b e r 2 7 , [ A n d e r s o n ] may essential obtain expert

2011, so t h a t

assistance

and d i a g n o s t i c t e s t i n g II. Standard

to her

defense."

of Review

"Mandamus i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t a n d w i l l b e i s s u e d ' " o n l y when t h e r e i s : ( 1 ) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t in the p e t i t i o n e r to the order sought, ( 2 ) an imperative duty upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t to perform, a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o , ( 3 ) t h e l a c k o f another adequate remedy, and ( 4 ) p r o p e r l y invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court."' E x p a r t e L a n d , 775 S o . 2 d 8 4 7 , 850 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e Horton, 711 S o . 2 d 9 7 9 , 983 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) ) . When we c o n s i d e r a mandamus p e t i t i o n , t h e s c o p e o f o u r r e v i e w i s t o determine whether the t r i a l court c l e a r l y exceeded its discretion. E x p a r t e T e g n e r , 682 S o . 2 d 396 (Ala. 1996)."

1110793 State v . B u i , 888 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 7 , 1 2 2 9 ( A l a . III. Anderson direct Defense ordered December submitted of argues Analysis that this Court of should Indigent 2004).

i n her p e t i t i o n court t o compel

the c i r c u i t Services by

the Office to disburse

and t h e c o m p t r o l l e r court o n May

payments as 27, and t o "have court these

the c i r c u i t

23, September claims

7, 2 0 1 1 .

In the p e t i t i o n ,

Anderson

numerous ex p a r t e

motions n o t i f y i n g refusal to

the t r i a l disburse

t h e Department

of Finance's

court-ordered refused the

funds."

Y e t , she says,

"[t]he t r i a l Defense or

c o u r t has

to find

[the Office in

of Indigent of

S e r v i c e s and compel Services "[t]he the to

comptroller]

contempt

court,

Comptroller make t h e s e court has

of the Office payments." refused to

of Indigent

[Defense] that

Anderson also claims find these officials

trial or

i n contempt

otherwise After left

attempt

t o remedy t h e s e

constitutional

violations.

filing with

numerous m o t i o n s i n t h e t r i a l adequate remedy." court entered 7,

court, defense are

no o t h e r case,

In t h i s September payments

the c i r c u i t

orders

o n May 2 3 , interim however,

27, and December

2011, o r d e r i n g experts.

that

b e made t o A n d e r s o n ' s

Anderson,

1110793 has not supported t h e c l a i m s made i n t h e p e t i t i o n t h a t defense

counsel court the

f i l e d m u l t i p l e contempt motions n o t i f y i n g t h e c i r c u i t refusal to disburse t h e funds and

of the comptroller's

r e f u s a l o f the O f f i c e of Indigent Defense Services t o pret h e d i s b u r s a l o f t h e funds and seeking the circuit

approve

court's enforcement o f i t s orders Instead, Anderson merely by f i l i n g states

through i t s contempt powers. i n her brief motions that she sought the circuit Services no

enforcement court and

contempt

and that

refused t o find the O f f i c e of Indigent i n contempt,

Defense

the comptroller

b u t she has p r o v i d e d those

attachments The

to her petition

indicating she f i l e d

circumstances.

contempt motions

she says

are not included i n for a writ of

the m a t e r i a l s submitted mandamus. So. 3d

with Anderson's p e t i t i o n Guaranty Pest (stating

See, e.g., Ex p a r t e (Ala.

C o n t r o l , I n c . , 21 that the by "'record

1 2 2 2 , 1228

2009)

c a n n o t be c h a n g e d , in briefs 61,

a l t e r e d o r v a r i e d on a p p e a l (quoting

statements

of counsel'"

C o o p e r v . Adams, 295 A l a . 58,

322 S o . 2 d 7 0 6 , 708 Rule 21(a) ( 1 ) ( B ) , for a writ

(1975))). A l a . R. App. P., provides this that a

petitioner with

o f mandamus

i s to provide t o an

Court

a "statement

of the f a c t s necessary

understanding

1110793 of the the issues role presented by t h e p e t i t i o n . " i n assembling We h a v e explained t o be

of the p a r t i e s

the materials

reviewed

i n a mandamus p r o c e e d i n g

as f o l l o w s :

"'The m a t e r i a l s r e v i e w e d b y t h i s C o u r t in considering a petition f o r writ of mandamus c o n s i s t o f e x h i b i t s p r o v i d e d b y the p a r t i e s : "'"[A] p e t i t i o n e r f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i s o b l i g e d t o p r o v i d e w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n 'copies o f any order or opinion or parts of the r e c o r d t h a t w o u l d be e s s e n t i a l t o an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the matters set f o r t h i n the p e t i t i o n . ' Rule 2 1 ( a ) , A l a . R. A p p . P. In the event the p e t i t i o n i s not denied, the respondent i s directed to f i l e an a n s w e r t o t h e p e t i t i o n , which provides the respondent with an 'opportunity to supplement the "record" by attaching exhibits of i t s own '" "'Ex p a r t e F o n t a i n e T r a i l e r C o . , 8 54 S o . 2 d 71, 74 ( A l a . 2003) (quoting Ex parte M i l t o p e C o r p . , 522 S o . 2 d 2 7 2 , 2 7 3 ( A l a . 1988)).' "Ex p a r t e C o v i n g t o n P i k e D o d g e , 2 2 6 , 232 n. 2 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . ... I n c . , 904 So. 2d

"When t h i s C o u r t c o n s i d e r s a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, t h e o n l y m a t e r i a l s b e f o r e i t a r e t h e p e t i t i o n and t h e answer and any a t t a c h m e n t s t o those documents. There i s no traditional 'record' s u b m i t t e d t o t h i s C o u r t by t h e t r i a l c o u r t c l e r k as i n an a p p e a l . " 9

1110793 Ex p a r t e As Court issues App. Guaranty Pest Control, the petitioner, "facts Anderson I n c . , 21 So. 3d a t to 1227-28. this the

i s obliged

advise

of a l l the

n e c e s s a r y t o an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f Rule 21(a)(1)(B), right ... to

p r e s e n t e d by and to

the p e t i t i o n , " "a clear

A l a . R. order

P.,

show

legal

the

s o u g h t a n d an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y u p o n t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , accompanied shown. interim has not by a refusal the c i r c u i t t o do court s o , " none entered experts. court has of which have been

Here,

the orders Anderson, refused

directing however, enforce has not

payments shown

f o r Anderson's the circuit on of the

that

to

those

orders. her

Based burden

foregoing, a

Anderson by the

satisfied court

showing

refusal

circuit

to enforce

i t s orders. IV. Conclusion c o n c l u d e t h a t A n d e r s o n has the petition. not

B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we satisfied her burden, DENIED. a n d we

deny

PETITION Malone, and Wise,

C . J . , and W o o d a l l , S t u a r t ,

Bolin,

Murdock,

Main,

J J . , concur. and Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r i n t h e result.

Parker

10