Title: Ex parte Anthony Richard Perch. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CRIMINAL (In re: Anthony Richard Perch v. Judge Alfred Bahakel)

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL: 2/20/09
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, 2008-2009
_________________________
1080131
_________________________
Ex parte Anthony Richard Perch
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re:  Anthony Richard Perch
v.
Judge Alfred Bahakel)
(Jefferson Circuit Court, CC-94-1050)
WOODALL, Justice.
Anthony Richard Perch is an inmate at Holman Correctional
Facility.  In May 2008, he sent a letter to the clerk of the
Jefferson Circuit Court, requesting, pursuant to § 36-12-40,
Ala. Code 1975, copies of certain documents from the files in
1080131
2
three cases involving criminal charges against a person who
had testified as a witness for the State in the trial in which
Perch was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life
imprisonment 
without 
the 
possibility 
of 
parole. 
More
specifically, he asked for copies of the case-action-summary
sheets, the indictment, the plea agreement, the explanation-
of-rights form, and the sentencing order in each case.  Perch
requested that the documents be sent to him at the
correctional facility.
The clerk received Perch's letter on May 29.  The next
day, she responded to his request, advising him that the cost
for copies of the records would be $15.  Perch's father mailed
the payment to the clerk and requested that the documents be
mailed to Perch at the correctional facility.  However, Perch
never received the documents.  Instead, he received documents
indicating that Jefferson Circuit Judge Alfred Bahakel had
entered orders on June 18, 2008, denying his request for
documents.  
Perch filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the
Court of Criminal Appeals, requesting that that court  direct
the Jefferson Circuit Court to vacate its orders denying his
1080131
3
request for documents and to enter orders directing the clerk
to send the requested copies to Perch at the correctional
facility.  On October 15, 2008, the Court of Criminal Appeals
denied the petition, without an opinion.  Ex parte Perch (No.
CR-07-1915), ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2008)(table).
Perch then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in
this Court, again requesting an order directing the trial
court to vacate its orders of June 18, 2008, and to enter
orders directing the clerk to mail copies of the requested
documents to Perch.   See Ala. R. App. P. 21(e)(1).  Perch is
clearly entitled to the relief he seeks.  Therefore, we grant
his petition and issue the writ.
Section 36-12-40 is referred to as the Open Records Act
("the Act").  The Act "is remedial and should therefore be
liberally construed in favor of the public."  Water Works &
Sewer Bd. of Talladega v. Consolidated Publ'g, Inc., 892 So.
2d 859, 862 (Ala. 2004).  The Act provides, in relevant part,
that "[e]very citizen has a right to inspect and take a copy
of any public writing of this state, except as otherwise
expressly provided by statute."  "No statute denies this right
to inmates or felons."  Ex parte Gill, 841 So. 2d 1231, 1233
1080131
4
(Ala. 2002). The term "public writing," as the Court of
Criminal Appeals recently acknowledged, "has been interpreted
to include judicial records."  State v. Martin, [Ms. CR-07-
0909, August 29, 2008] ___ So. 2d ___, ___ (Ala. Crim. App.
2008) (holding that trial exhibits are public records and
that, therefore, a requester "was not required to establish
good cause before he was entitled to inspect the trial
exhibits").  
The judicial records requested by Perch are obviously
"public writings."  Indeed, the State concedes that "Perch may
have a right to obtain copies of records pertaining to
criminal proceedings that are kept in the circuit clerk's
office."  State's brief, at 6.  Thus, Perch is entitled to
copies of the requested documents "except as otherwise
expressly provided by statute."  However, the State cites no
statute that would preclude Perch's entitlement to the
documents, and we are aware of none.  Instead, the State
argues that the trial court's orders denying Perch's request
for the documents were correct for several other reasons.  
The State argues that the trial court acted within its
discretion in denying Perch's request for judicial records
1080131
5
because, according to the State, "[t]hose records contain
sensitive information about the identities of sexual abuse or
rape victims."  State's brief, at 3.  However, the trial court
gave no reason for its orders denying Perch's request, and
there is no evidence before this Court indicating that the
records 
Perch 
is 
requesting 
contain 
any 
"sensitive
information."  In support of its argument, the State cites
only Rule 52, Ala. R. App. P., an obviously inapplicable
appellate rule. Perch argues, and we agree, that "the trial
court was not without recourse to protect [any] sensitive
information 
[and] 
could 
have 
ordered 
the 
[sensitive]
information redacted."  Perch's reply brief, at 4.
The State also argues that Perch has not shown that "the
[requested] records were ... relevant or necessary for [him]
to challenge the validity of his convictions."  State's brief,
at 3. This argument is without merit.  Perch's "right [to
inspect and copy public writings] is not dependent on the
pendency or lack of pendency of any criminal proceeding."
Gill, 841 So. 2d at 1233.  Further, a requester is not
required to demonstrate good cause before he or she is
1080131
6
entitled to inspect public writings.  Martin, ___ So. 2d at
___.
The State next argues that the Act "requires that a
[requester] not only pay the cost of copying the records, but
also the cost of having the copies mailed to him."  State's
brief, at 4.  This is true, the State says, because the Act
"does not require the custodian to undertake the burden and
expense of mailing or otherwise delivering the copies."  Gill,
841 So. 2d at 1234.  The State claims that Perch is entitled
to no relief because, according to the State, "there is
nothing to show ... that he paid the clerk's office to mail
the copies to him."  State's brief, at 5.  We disagree.  When
Perch requested that copies of specific documents be mailed to
him at the correctional facility, the clerk responded that his
cost for the copies  would be $15.  Considering the nature of
his request and the substance of the clerk's response, it is
reasonable to conclude that the cost quoted by the clerk was
intended to, and did, include the expense of mailing.  See
Ala. R. Jud. Admin. 30(D) ("If the requesting individual
requests that the clerk forward the copies [of court records]
by mail, the clerk shall not pay for postage.").
1080131
7
Finally, the State argues that Perch is entitled to no
relief, because "there is nothing to show that he sent anyone
[to the clerk's office] to obtain the copies."  State's brief,
at 5.  This argument is based on portions of this Court's
opinion in Gill.
In Gill, an inmate requested that a circuit clerk furnish
him 
with 
certain 
information 
concerning 
grand-jury 
forepersons
from 1980 through 2000, as well as "'demographic data'"
concerning the members of a specific grand jury.  841 So. 2d
at 1233.  "Gill did not identify the particular writings to be
copied and did not tender any payment for copies to be made."
841 So. 2d at 1234.  Further, "he did not present himself at
the circuit clerk's office or send an agent to inspect
writings, to identify those to be copied, to make such copies,
to pay the circuit clerk to make them, or to take delivery of
them."  Id.  Under those circumstances, this Court  held that
Gill was not entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the
circuit court "to order the circuit clerk ... to copy the
documents and to 'forward' the copies to Gill at his address
in the penitentiary."  841 So. 2d at 1232.  In the context of
the facts of that case, this Court stated that "any inspection
1080131
8
of the writings and any identification of the ones to be
copied must be performed by the citizen or his or her agent
(simply another citizen) under such reasonable safeguards as
the custodian may impose for the preservation of the
writings."  841 So. 2d at 1234.  This Court held that "Gill
had no legal right, much less a clear legal right, to require
the circuit clerk to inspect the writings, to identify the
appropriate ones, to copy them, to deliver them to Gill, all
in the absence of Gill or his agent, and to bear the expense
of such copying and delivery."  841 So. 2d at 1234.
The facts in Gill are easily distinguished from the facts
of this case.  Unlike Gill, Perch specifically identified the
writings to be copied.  In light of the clerk's prompt
response regarding Perch's cost for the requested copies, it
is obvious that the requested documents were easily identified
and readily available.  Unlike Gill, Perch tendered payment
for the copies to be made and mailed to him. After tendering
payment, there simply was no purpose to be served by Perch's
"present[ing] himself at the circuit clerk's office or
send[ing] an agent."  
1080131
9
For the foregoing reasons, Perch's petition for a writ of
mandamus is granted and the writ is issued.
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
Lyons, Stuart, Smith, Bolin, Parker, and Murdock, JJ.,
concur.
Cobb, C.J., and Shaw, J.,* recuse themselves.
*Justice Shaw was a member of the Court of Criminal
Appeals when that court considered Perch's petition for a writ
of mandamus.