Case ID: so2d_842/html/0717-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. CRAWLEY, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Michael DEXTER v. STATE of Alabama.
    2010895.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    Aug. 16, 2002.
    William Michael Dexter, pro se.
    Nancy S. Jones, asst. atty. gen., Alabama Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

On May 23, 2001, the trial court entered a judgment in which it found William Michael Dexter not guilty by reason of insanity on charges of assault. In that same judgment, the trial court ordered that Dexter be involuntarily committed to the custody of the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation for treatment. Dexter was confined at Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility.

On February 22, 2002, Dexter, acting pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he alleged that he no longer met the requirements under § 22-52-37, Ala.Code 1975, for civil commitment. The trial court denied Dexter’s petition. Dexter appealed to this court.

In his brief on appeal, Dexter contends, among other things, that he would like to enter a plea of not guilty to the charges lodged against him (apparently the assault charges), and that his confinement has caused him to suffer from claustrophobia. However, Dexter’s brief on appeal contains no citations to supporting legal authority, in contravention of Rule 28, Ala. R.App. P. Although this court is not unsympathetic to a pro se litigant such as Dexter, he must, nonetheless, comply with legal procedures and court rules in the same manner as a litigant represented by counsel. Jones v. Seibert, 624 So.2d 689 (Ala.Civ.App.1993); Bowman v. Pat’s Auto Parts, 504 So.2d 736 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). “The operation of the courts of this state is governed by rules which are no more forgiving to a pro se litigant than to one represented by counsel.” Black v. Allen, 587 So.2d 349, 349 (Ala.Civ.App.1991).

Dexter’s failure to comply with Rule 28, Ala. R.App. P. leaves this court with nothing to review; we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. Sullivan v. Alfa. Mut. Ins. Co., 656 So.2d 1233 (Ala.Civ.App.1995).

AFFIRMED.

YATES, P.J., and THOMPSON and PITTMAN, JJ., concur.

CRAWLEY, J., concurs specially.

CRAWLEY, Judge,

concurring specially.

Dexter was adjudged not guilty of assault by reason of mental disease or defect and committed for treatment to the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. The commitment of a criminal defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity is not a commitment pursuant to a civil commitment proceeding of § 22-52-37, Ala. Code 1975, but rather is pursuant to § 15-16-43, Ala.Code 1975, and Rule 25.6, Ala. R.Crim. P.

“ ‘Under Alabama law, civil commitments and commitments of persons found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect are governed by separate statutes. Civil commitments are handled by the probate court.’ Committee Comments, Rule 25.2, Ala. R.Crim. P. Furthermore, initiation of commitment proceedings of a criminal defendant found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect is mandated by § 15 — 16—41 and Rule 25.2(a), not initiated by the state. Section 15-16-41 states, in part, ‘If a defendant in a criminal case is found not guilty by reason of insanity, the court shall forthwith determine whether the defendant should be held for a hearing on the issue of his involuntary commitment to the Alabama State Department of Mental Health.’ Rule 25.2(a) reads, ‘If the defendant is found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, or not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, the court shall forthwith determine whether the defendant should be held for hearing on the issue of his involuntary commitment under Rule 25.3.’ It is not the state’s responsibility, but the court’s responsibility to follow the mandates of § 15-16-41 and Rule 25.2(a) and initiate commitment proceedings.”

Ivery v. State, 686 So.2d 495, 511 (Ala.Crim.App.1996).

Dexter’s habeas petition alleging that he no longer meets the requirements for a civil commitment under § 22-52-37 was due to be dismissed because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. If Dexter has a remedy, it is pursuant to Rule 25.8, Ala. R.Crim. P., and he is entitled to counsel, see § 15-16-65, Ala.Code 1975; Rule 25.9, Ala. R.Crim. P.