Improper Appointment of Judge Following Recusal Does Not Destroy Subject Matter Jurisdiction

|

Ex parte Files, [Ms. SC-2023-0816, June 14, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024). On certiorari review, the Court (Shaw, J.; Parker, C.J., and Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, Stewart, Mitchell, and Cook, JJ., concur) affirms the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirming the Walker Circuit Court’s dismissal of David Eugene Files’s petition seeking post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P.

The Court first notes “that Files was charged and convicted of a felony, specifically, murder. The Walker Circuit Court thus had subject-matter jurisdiction over the prosecution of that offense. However, the issue is whether the assignment of Judge Lapkovitch by Judge Brotherton, after having recused himself, in turn worked to deny the Walker Circuit Court subject-matter jurisdiction.” Ms. *10. In affirming, the Court overrules Lawler Manufacturing Co. v. Lawler, 306 So. 3d 23 (Ala. 2020), stating “Lawler correctly held that the assignment of a judge under Rule 13 by a presiding judge who had recused himself was erroneous and due to be vacated, but such error does not impact the lower court’s jurisdiction. To the extent that Lawler held otherwise, it is overruled.” Ms. **16-17.

Related Documents

Categories: