Title: Ex Parte Maye

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

799 So. 2d 944 (2001)
Ex parte Jerry MAYE.
(Re Jerry Maye v. Gregory Albritton, in his capacity as Municipal Judge for the City of Evergreen; and Gordon Ray Batson, in his capacity as special circuit judge assigned to Conecuh Circuit Court).
1991767.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
May 4, 2001.
*946 Paul M. Harden, Sr., of Harden & Harden, L.L.C., Monroeville; and Mickey Womble, Monroeville, for petitioner.
Gregory L. Albritton, Municipal Judge, respondent, pro se.
James W. May of James W. May & Associates, P.C., Foley, for amicus curiae Alabama Court Reporters Association.
JOHNSTONE, Justice.
Jerry Maye petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing Special Circuit Judge Gordon Ray Batson to order Municipal Judge Gregory Albritton to allow Maye to hire a court reporter to record municipal court proceedings on a charge against Maye for driving under the influence. Maye also petitions this Court for a writ of prohibition prohibiting Municipal Judge Albritton from ordering defense counsel Paul Harden, Sr., to refrain from hiring a court reporter to record any municipal court proceedings in the present case and in future cases handled by Harden in the Municipal Court of the City of Evergreen.
In 1999, Municipal Judge Albritton informed defense counsel that he could not use a court reporter to record municipal court proceedings in Maye's case or in any future cases in the Municipal Court of the City of Evergreen. Defense counsel moved the judge to reconsider his decision prohibiting the use of court reporters to record municipal court proceedings. Defense counsel asserted, among other grounds, that the judge's decision deprived defense counsel of his right to work product (i.e., the court reporter's transcript) to prepare effectively a defense on appeal of the municipal judge's ruling. Upon Municipal Judge Albritton's denial of defense counsel's motion to reconsider, defense counsel petitioned the Conecuh Circuit Court for a writ of mandamus. Judge Gordon Ray Batson conducted a hearing, at which Municipal Judge Albritton testified. Municipal Judge Albritton stated two reasons for prohibiting the use of court reporters to record municipal proceedings over which he presided. First, he said court reporters consume too much time to set up and to dismantle their equipment, and the delay hinders the court in its handling a large number of cases in one day and therefore increases the court's backlog. Second, Judge Albritton said that court reporters cause the parties to raise more objections to testimony and to issues raised by either party. Judge Batson denied the petition for a writ of mandamus and subsequently denied defense counsel's "Application for RehearingMotion for New Trial."
Maye now petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition. In his petition, Maye raises two issues: 1) whether the municipal judge abused his discretion in refusing to allow defense counsel to hire a court reporter to record the municipal court proceedings in this case and in future cases handled by defense counsel in the Municipal Court of the City of Evergreen; and 2) whether a defendant has a right to hire a court reporter to record municipal court proceedings.
Ex parte Mardis, 628 So. 2d 605, 606 (Ala. 1993).
Ex parte Moody, 681 So. 2d 276, 276-77 (Ala.Crim.App.1996), quoting Ex parte Shoemaker, 644 So. 2d 958, 959 (Ala.Civ. App.1993), rev'd, 644 So. 2d 961 (Ala.), on remand, 644 So. 2d 966 (Ala.Civ.App.1994).
Recently, this Court addressed whether a transcript of the municipal court proceedings in the City of Evergreen recorded by a court reporter hired by the defendant, who was charged with the misdemeanor offense of driving under the influence, constituted an adequate record for purposes of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Rule 30.2(1), Ala. R.Crim. P.[1]Ex parte Burnsed, [Ms. 1990792, March 1, 2001] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.2001). Dismissing Burnsed's appeal of his DUI conviction, the Court of Criminal Appeals had held that, because the transcript was prepared by a court reporter hired by the defendant and not appointed by the trial court, the transcript was not an official record and therefore was not an "adequate record" for appeal as required by Rule 30.2(1). Burnsed, ___ So.2d at ___. This Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remanded the case for reinstatement of Burnsed's appeal. We recognized:
Burnsed, ___ So.2d at ___. (Emphasis added.) In reaching our decision in Burnsed, we acknowledged that the Court of Criminal Appeals in Parker v. City of Tuscaloosa, 698 So. 2d 1171 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997), correctly noted that, because municipal courts, unlike circuit courts and district courts, are not courts of record, municipal courts are not authorized by rule or statute to appoint a court reporter. However, we rejected the rationale and holding of the Parker court that a "[defendant] does not have a legal right to have a transcript of the municipal court proceedings prepared by any court reporter of his choosing and paid for by him or by a court reporter hired by the City at the City's expense for the purposes of pursuing a direct appeal to [the appellate court]." Parker, 698 So. 2d  at 1173-74.
In refusing to allow defense counsel to hire a court reporter to record the municipal court proceedings, the municipal court in the case now before us relied upon the very rationale and holding of Parker that this Court rejected and overruled in Burnsed. While we have acknowledged that a defendant does not a have a legal right, established by rule or statute, to have a court reporter appointed to record municipal court proceedings, a defendant has a constitutional right to present a defense to the charges against him and at least a statutory right to appeal a conviction either on a record or for a trial de novo, § 12-14-70, Ala.Code 1975, and Rules 30.1 and 30.2, Ala. R.Crim. P. A record of the municipal court proceedings is necessary to an appeal on the record, Burnsed, supra, and is a legitimate aid in any appeal for a trial de novo. Thus Judge Albritton's rule against court reporters interferes with the jurisdiction of the circuit court and the appellate courts over appeals from the municipal court. No statute and no rule promulgated by this Court prohibits a defendant from hiring, at his own expense, a court reporter to record municipal court proceedings to make a record for purposes of appeal. Further, any appearance of impropriety or impartiality which may exist because a court reporter is hired by one party only can be eliminated by administering an oath to the court reporter. § 12-17-273, Ala. Code 1975. Absent any proof by the City that the record is not a substantially true and correct transcription of the proceedings below prepared by a qualified court reporter, the record is proper for use by defense counsel in appealing the judgment of the municipal court. Burnsed, supra. See also Ex parte Boswell, 558 So. 2d 918 (Ala.1990); Dobbs v. State Dep't of Pensions & Sec., 484 So. 2d 1052 (Ala.1984); and Shuler v. State, 56 Ala.App. 599, 324 So. 2d 313 (Ala.Crim.App.1975).
Maye has met the requirements for the relief he seeks. Thus, this Court grants the petition for a writ of mandamus and orders Judge Batson to order Municipal Judge Albritton to allow Maye to hire a qualified and sworn court reporter to record the municipal court proceedings on the DUI charge against Maye. We further grant the petition for a writ of prohibition and order Municipal Judge Albritton to refrain from prohibiting any qualified defense lawyer from hiring, at his or his client's own expense, a qualified court reporter to record any municipal court proceedings being handled by that lawyer in the Municipal Court of the City of Evergreen.
*949 WRIT OF MANDAMUS GRANTED; AND WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED.
MOORE, C.J., and HOUSTON, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, HARWOOD, WOODALL, and STUART, JJ., concur.
[1]  Rule 30.2(1) provides that a party may appeal from district or municipal court directly to the appropriate appellate court, bypassing the circuit court for a trial de novo, "[i]f an adequate record or stipulation of fact is available and the right to a jury trial is waived."