Case Title: Ex parte Jackie Collins. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Jackie Collins v. Alabama Department of Corrections)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1091310

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2010-11-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: 11/24/2010
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011
____________________
1091310
____________________
Ex parte Jackie Collins
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
(In re: Jackie Collins
v.
Alabama Department of Corrections)
(Montgomery Circuit Court, CV-09-1008;
Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-09-0529)
SMITH, Justice.
Jackie Collins petitioned this Court for a writ of
certiorari to review whether the Court of Criminal Appeals
erred in affirming the trial court's dismissal of his petition
for a writ of certiorari filed in the Montgomery Circuit
1091310
2
Court.  We granted certiorari review.  For the reasons
discussed below, we reverse the judgment of the Court of
Criminal Appeals.
I. Facts and Procedural History
In June 2009, Collins, an inmate at the Limestone
Correctional Facility, filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the Montgomery Circuit Court challenging his
custody 
reclassification by the Alabama Department 
of
Corrections ("the DOC").  Collins specifically alleged that in
altering his classification status the DOC denied him his due-
process rights.  In response, the DOC filed a "motion to
dismiss, or in the alternative, motion for summary judgment,"
contending that the petition was due to be dismissed because,
it said, Collins did not have a liberty interest in a
particular custody classification.  The circuit court granted
the DOC's motion stating in its order that "[a]n inmate does
not have a liberty interest in a particular classification"
and that "[Collins's] classification is appropriate according
to [the DOC's] rules and regulations." 
Collins then appealed that judgment to the Court of
Criminal Appeals.  That court affirmed the circuit court's
1091310
3
judgment, by an unpublished opinion.  See Collins v. Alabama
Dep't of Corr., (No. CR-09-0529, May 7, 2010) ___ So. 3d ___
(Ala. Crim. App. 2010) (table).  Collins petitioned this Court
for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Criminal
Appeals' affirmance of the judgment of the circuit court.  We
granted Collins's petition to address whether the decision of
the Court of Criminal Appeals conflicts with Smith v. State,
918 So. 2d 141, 147 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).
II. Standard of Review
"'This Court reviews pure questions of law in criminal
cases de novo.'" Ex parte Morrow, 915 So. 2d 539, 541 (Ala.
2004) (quoting Ex parte Key, 890 So. 2d 1056, 1059 (Ala.
2003)).
III. Discussion
In affirming the circuit court's dismissal of Collins's
petition, the Court of Criminal Appeals, in its unpublished
memorandum, stated:  "Because [Collins's] petition for a writ
of certiorari was not verified, his case was not properly
commenced, and there is not anything before this court for our
review.  See, e.g., Ex parte Ackles, 840 So. 2d 145 (Ala.
2002).  Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's judgment."
1091310
Notably, although § 6-6-640, Ala. Code 1975, is not
1
listed in Appendix II to the Alabama Rules of Appellate
Procedure among the statutes superseded by the Alabama Rules
of Appellate Procedure, this Court has held that a petition
for a writ of mandamus filed in an appellate court need not be
verified.  See Ex parte Johnson, 485 So. 2d 1098, 1106 (Ala.
1986) ("[W]e hold that the verification requirement of §
6-6-640 does not apply as to mandamus petitions governed by
the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure ....").
4
This conclusion is based upon § 6-6-640(a), Ala. Code 1975,
which provides: 
"All 
applications 
for 
mandamus, 
prohibition,
certiorari, or other remedial writ of a supervisory
nature shall be commenced by a petition, verified by
affidavit, in which the facts shall be stated as
briefly and succinctly as the case will admit of,
and any defendant may answer as to all such matters
as may be necessary to his defense; any of the
pleadings in such proceedings may be amended as
often as occasion may require to attain the ends of
justice and by striking out parties and adding new
parties; and upon the issues thus presented, the
court shall award the relief, if any, to which the
petitioner is entitled."1
Further, the Court of Criminal Appeals in its memorandum cites
Ex parte Ackles, 840 So. 2d 145 (Ala. 2002), in which this
Court denied a petition seeking a writ of mandamus instructing
a circuit court to vacate its dismissal of a petition for a
writ of mandamus "on the ground that the petition for a writ
of mandamus filed in the ... Circuit Court was not verified by
1091310
5
affidavit as required by § 6-6-640(a), Ala. Code 1975."  840
So. 2d at 146.  
The Court of Criminal Appeals sua sponte raised the issue
whether Collins had verified his petition for a writ of
certiorari filed in the circuit court; the DOC did not raise
this issue in the circuit court.  Therefore, the Court of
Criminal 
Appeals 
implicitly 
treated 
the 
verification
requirement 
in 
§ 
6-6-640(a), 
Ala. 
Code 
1975, 
as 
a
jurisdictional requirement that could be raised at any time.
See generally Ex parte V.S., 918 So. 2d 908, 912 (Ala. 2005)
("It is well settled that lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
can be raised at any time by the parties or by the court ex
mero motu."); Waite v. Waite, 959 So. 2d 610, 612-13 (Ala.
2006) (holding that affirmative defenses that are not
jurisdictional in nature may not be raised sua sponte by an
appellate court).  In sum, the Court of Criminal Appeals
affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of Collins's petition
on the ground that Collins's failure to verify his petition
for a remedial writ in accordance with § 6-6-640(a), Ala. Code
1975, 
deprived 
the 
circuit 
court 
of 
subject-matter
jurisdiction to entertain the petition. 
1091310
6
Collins contends that the Court of Criminal Appeals'
implicit holding that the verification requirement in § 6-6-
640(a), Ala. Code 1975, is a jurisdictional requirement
conflicts with that court's decision in Smith v. State, 918
So. 2d 141 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).  In Smith, the Court of
Criminal Appeals addressed whether a petitioner's failure to
verify a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition for post-
conviction relief constitutes a jurisdictional defect.  In
language similar to § 6-6-640(a), Rule 32.6(a), Ala. R. Crim.
P., states, in part:
"A proceeding under [Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P.,] is
commenced by filing a petition, verified by the
petitioner or the petitioner's attorney, with the
clerk of the court.  A petition may be filed at any
time after entry of judgment and sentence (subject
to the provisions of Rule 32.2(c)).  The petition
should be filed by using or following the form
accompanying this rule.  If that form is not used or
followed, the court shall return the petition to the
petitioner to be amended to comply with the form.
..."
In Smith the Court of Criminal Appeals held that "proper
verification of a Rule 32 petition, although required by Rule
32.6(a), is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to the filing of
the petition and, accordingly, that the lack of proper
verification 
does 
not 
deprive 
the 
circuit 
court 
of
1091310
Section 15-21-4, Ala. Code 1975, provides:
2
"Application for a writ of habeas corpus must be
made by petition, signed either by the party himself
for whose benefit it is intended or by some other
person on his behalf, must be verified by the oath
of the applicant to the effect that the statements
therein contained are true to the best of his
knowledge, information and belief and must state, in
substance, the name of the person on whose behalf
the application is made, that he is imprisoned or
restrained of his liberty in the county, the place
of such imprisonment, if known, the name of the
officer or person by whom he is so imprisoned and
the cause or pretense of such imprisonment; and, if
the imprisonment is by virtue of any warrant, writ
or other process, a copy thereof must be annexed to
the petition or the petition must allege that a copy
thereof has been demanded and refused or must show
some sufficient excuse for the failure to demand a
7
subject-matter jurisdiction of a Rule 32 petition."  918 So.
2d at 154.  That court explained that "the verification
requirement is more appropriately a matter of form, the
omission or inadequacy of which amounts to an irregularity
that is subject to cure by a proper and timely amendment, and
may be waived by the State if not properly raised."  Smith,
918 So. 2d at 153.  In reaching this conclusion, the Court of
Criminals Appeals considered Alabama caselaw holding that the
verification requirement for a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus set out in § 15-21-4, Ala. Code 1975, is not a
jurisdictional prerequisite.   See Smith, 918 So. 2d at 146
2
1091310
copy."
8
(citing 29 Ala. Digest 2d Habeas Corpus § 673 (2002)).
Further, the Court of Criminal Appeals noted in Smith that
"[i]t appears to be the general rule ... that, even when
verification of a civil pleading is required by law, in the
absence of a clear indication to the contrary, it is not
treated as an indispensable part of the pleading so that the
lack of verification must be deemed to vitiate a court's
subject-matter jurisdiction."  918 So. 2d at 147 (quoting 61B
Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 888 (1999) for the proposition that
"[v]erification of a pleading is not a jurisdictional
requirement, and want of verification is not a jurisdictional
defect"). 
The DOC contends that the decision of the Court of
Criminal Appeals to affirm the circuit court's dismissal of
Collins's petition does not conflict with Smith because, it
says, "the language requiring verification in Alabama Code
[1975,] § 6-6-640, construed in Ackles, is stronger than the
language in Rule 32.6, [Ala. R. Crim. P.,] which was construed
in Smith."  The DOC's brief, at p. 9 (emphasis original).
Specifically, the DOC contends that § 6-6-640(a) "connotes a
1091310
9
more stringent requirement," because, it reasons, § 6-6-640(a)
includes the mandatory language that remedial writs "shall be
commenced by a petition, verified by affidavit" whereas Rule
32.6, Ala. R. Crim. P., states that "[a] proceeding under
[Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P.,] is commenced by filing a
petition, verified by the petition or the petitioner's
attorney."  (Emphasis added.)  We see no merit to the DOC's
contentions that the difference between the language of § 6-6-
640(a) and Rule 32.6(a), Ala. R. Crim. P., renders the general
holding in Smith--that the requirement that a pleading be
verified is not jurisdictional in nature--inapplicable to the
present case. 
Additionally, in Ex parte Ackles this Court did not
specifically discuss the issue whether proper verification of
a petition for a remedial writ under § 6-6-640(a), Ala. Code
1975, is a jurisdictional prerequisite.  In that case, an
inmate petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus directing
the circuit court to vacate its dismissal of the inmate's
petition for a writ of mandamus filed in the circuit court.
840 So. 2d at 146.  As stated earlier, this Court denied the
inmate's petition "on the ground that the petition for a writ
1091310
10
of mandamus filed in the ... Circuit Court was not verified by
affidavit as required by § 6-6-640(a), Ala. Code 1975."  Ex
parte Ackles, 840 So. 2d at 146.  This Court's decision in Ex
parte Ackles does not state whether, in the circuit court, the
respondent party challenged the inmate's petition on the basis
that it was not verified by affidavit.  Therefore, we do not
know whether this Court sua sponte raised the lack of
verification as a jurisdictional prerequisite.  Nevertheless,
the DOC contends that "to the extent that Smith, a Court of
Criminal Appeals opinion, is in conflict with this Court's
opinion in Ackles, it is Smith that must [be] overruled and
not Ackles."  The DOC's brief, at p. 10.
After this Court's decision in Ex parte Ackles and the
Court of Criminal Appeals' decision in Smith, this Court, in
Ex parte Seymour, 946 So. 2d 536 (Ala. 2006), held that a
conviction based upon an indictment that omitted an element of
offense was not void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
See Ex parte Seymour, 946 So. 2d at 538.  In so holding, this
Court explained that "[s]ubject-matter jurisdiction concerns
a court's power to decide certain types of cases."  Ex parte
Seymour, 946 So. 2d at 538.  Further, "[a court's] power is
1091310
11
derived from the Alabama Constitution and the Alabama Code."
Id. (citing United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630-31
(2002)).  Therefore, whether a circuit court has subject-
matter jurisdiction over a case is determined by inquiring as
to whether the circuit court has the requisite constitutional
or statutory authority over the case.  See id.  
The Alabama Constitution provides that the circuit court
has original jurisdiction over all cases, except as limited by
the legislature. 
"In December 1973, the citizens of this state
ratified a constitutional amendment revising the
entire Judicial Article (Article VI) of the Alabama
Constitution of 1901.  See Annotations to Ala.
Const. amend. 328.  This amendment 'mandated a
unified [judicial] system,'  Cowin Equipment Co. v.
Robison Mining Co., 342 So. 2d  910, 912 (Ala.
1977), 'consist[ing] of a supreme court, a court of
criminal appeals, a court of civil appeals, a trial
court of general jurisdiction known as the circuit
court, a trial court of limited jurisdiction known
as the district court, a probate court and such
municipal courts as may be provided by law.'  Ala.
Const. amend. 328, § 6.01(a) (emphasis added)."
Henderson v. State, 616 So. 2d 406, 407-08 (Ala. Crim. App.
1993).  Article VI, § 142, Ala. Const. of 1901 (Off. Recomp.)
(formerly § 6.04, Amend. No. 328), further sets out the basic
jurisdiction of the circuit court, as follows:
1091310
12
"The 
circuit 
court 
shall 
exercise 
general
jurisdiction in all cases except as may otherwise be
provided by law.  The circuit court may be
authorized 
to 
review 
decisions 
of 
state
administrative agencies and decisions of inferior
courts.  It shall have authority to issue such writs
as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate its
powers, and shall have such other powers as may be
provided by law."
(Emphasis added.)  The legislature, in § 41-22-20, Ala. Code
1975, utilized this section of the Alabama Constitution to
authorize judicial review by the circuit court of final
decisions of administrative agencies.  Specifically, § 41-22-
20, Ala. Code 1975, provides that "[a] person who has
exhausted all administrative remedies available within the
agency" may seek judicial review of a administrative decision
by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari 
"in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County or in the
circuit court of the county in which the agency
maintains its headquarters, or unless otherwise
specifically provided by statute, in the circuit
court of the county where a party[,] other than an
intervenor, resides or if a party, other than an
intervenor, is a corporation, domestic or foreign,
having a registered office or business office in
this state, then in the county of the registered
office or principal place of business within this
state."
§ 41-22-20(a) and (b), Ala. Code 1975.  Section 41-22-20(h),
Ala. Code 1975, further provides:
1091310
13
"The petition for review shall name the agency as
respondent and shall contain a concise statement of:
"(1) The nature of the agency action
which is the subject of the petition; 
"(2) The particular agency action
appealed from; 
"(3) The facts and law on which
jurisdiction and venue are based; 
"(4) The grounds on which relief is
sought; and 
"(5) The relief sought." 
Notably, the requirement that the petition for the writ of
certiorari filed in the circuit court be verified by affidavit
is found in § 6-6-640, not § 41-22-20.
We hold that the verification requirement in § 6-6-
640(a), Ala. Code 1975, for petitions for writs of mandamus,
prohibition, certiorari, or other remedial writs is purely a
procedural requirement, not a jurisdictional requirement,
because the verification of the petition does not limit the
power of the circuit court to adjudicate the petition.  If the
respondent to the petition properly raises the verification
requirement in the circuit court, the petition "may be amended
as often as occasion may require to attain the ends of justice
...."  § 6-6-640(a), Ala. Code 1975.  However, if the
1091310
14
respondent 
does 
not 
properly 
raise 
the 
verification
requirement in the circuit court, that issue is waived.  
Here, Collins's petition for a writ of certiorari was
properly within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the circuit
court, and Collins's failure to verify the petition by
affidavit could not deprive the circuit court or the Court of
Criminal Appeals of the power to adjudicate the case.  See Ex
parte Seymour, 946 So. 2d at 538.  Accordingly, the Court of
Criminal Appeals erred in concluding that, because Collins had
not verified his petition for certiorari review, "his case was
not properly commenced, and there is not anything before this
court for our review."  To the extent that Ex parte Ackles is
inconsistent with our holding today, that case is hereby
overruled.
Conclusion
For these reasons, we reverse the judgment of the Court
of Criminal Appeals and remand this cause for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.  
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Cobb, C.J., and Lyons, Woodall, Stuart, Bolin, Parker,
Murdock, and Shaw, JJ., concur.