Ex parte Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission, [Ms. CL-2024-0532, CL-2024-0533, CL-2024-0589, CL-2024-0590, CL-2024-0591, CL-2024-0592, CL-2024-0593, and CL-2024-0594, Sept. 13, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024), in a unanimous per curiam opinion, the court vacates on mandamus the last full paragraph of the Montgomery Circuit Court’s dismissal order of the master case entered following remand. That portion of the circuit’s order provided that orders entered in the master case would be deemed entered in each of the related pending cases. Ms. **12-13.
The court first explains “[w]hether a trial court has properly applied and interpreted an appellate court’s decision is properly reviewable by a writ of mandamus.” Ms. *9, quoting Ex parte United States Fid & Guar Co., 585 So. 2d 922, 924 (Ala. 1991). The court reiterates that “‘[i]t is the duty of the trial court to comply with the mandate of the appellate court according to it true intent and meaning, as ... determined strictly by the directions given by the reviewing court. No judgment other than that directed or permitted by the reviewing court may be entered.’” Ms. **9-10, citing Ex parte Alabama Power Co., 431 So. 2d 151, 155 (Ala. 1983)(quoting 5 Am. Jur. 2d. Appeal and Error § 991 (1962)).
Following remand, the circuit court issued a dismissal order in the master case with the caveat that any order affecting the pending cases “but which had been entered only in the master case, would remain ‘in full force and effect in the pending cases.’” Ms. *12. However, the appellate court had entered a previous order in Ex parte Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission, [Ms. CL-2024-0073, June 21, 2024] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2024) (“AMCC I”), which specifically determined that all the orders entered in the master case were void. Id. The court emphasizes that “‘[a]ny act by a trial court beyond the scope of an appellate court’s [mandate] is void for a lack of jurisdiction.’” Ms. *12, quoting Jackson v. State, 177 So. 3d 911, 939 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014).
The court further clarifies that “the circuit court did not violate our mandate in AMCC I by rectifying its earlier error and entering the orders and filings into the other pending cases.” Ms. **14-15. The intent of the court was to dismiss the master case, and all the orders associated with that case, not to “deprive the circuit court of the power to enter orders and other filings in the other related cases to resolve the issues in those cases.” Id.