Title: Ex Parte Weeks
Citation: 611 So. 2d 259
Docket Number: 1911586
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: October 9, 1992

611 So. 2d 259 (1992)
Ex parte Kenneth Earl WEEKS, Jr.
(In re State of Alabama v. Kenneth Earl Weeks, Jr.)
No. 1911586.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
October 9, 1992.
Rehearing Denied December 4, 1992.
*260 Phillip B. Price, Sr., Huntsville, for petitioner.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
HOUSTON, Justice.
Kenneth Earl Weeks, Jr., was convicted in the Morgan County District Court for driving without a license and driving while under the influence of alcohol. He appealed those convictions to the Morgan County *261 Circuit Court for a trial de novo before a jury, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, §§ 12-12-70(b) and 12-12-71. The circuit court dismissed Weeks's appeal when he failed to appear for trial. After an unsuccessful attempt to get the circuit court to set aside its order dismissing his appeal, Weeks petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of mandamus requiring the circuit court to reinstate his appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeals denied the writ, without an opinion. Weeks then filed this petition for a writ of mandamus, pursuant to Rule 21(e), A.R.App.P., arguing that we should direct the circuit court to reinstate his appeal because, he says, he did not receive notice of the scheduled trial date and, therefore, the dismissal of his appeal constituted a denial of his right to procedural due process of law.
The pertinent facts are set out in the following affidavit filed by Weeks:
Procedural due process, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 6, of the Alabama Constitution of 1901, broadly speaking, contemplates the rudimentary requirements of fair play, which include a fair and open hearing before a legally constituted court or other authority, with notice and the opportunity to present evidence and argument, representation by counsel, if desired, and information as to the claims of the opposing party, with reasonable opportunity to controvert them. See Pike v. Southern Bell Telephone &amp; Telegraph Co., 263 Ala. 59, 81 So. 2d 254 (1955); Vernon v. State, 245 Ala. 633, 18 So. 2d 388 (1944). It is generally understood that an opportunity for a hearing before a competent and impartial tribunal upon proper notice is one of the essential elements of due process. 16A Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 839 (1979), citing Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd. v. State ex rel. Krasner, 247 Ala. 469, 25 So. 2d 30 (1945); Frahn v. Greyling Realization Corp., 239 Ala. 580, 195 So. 758 *262 (1940); Fowler v. Nash, 225 Ala. 613, 144 So. 831 (1932); see, also, 21A Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 640 (1981). Although it is generally held in Alabama that a party is under a duty to follow the status of his case, whether he is represented by counsel or acting pro se, and that, as a general rule, no duty rests upon either the court or the opposing party to advise that party of his scheduled trial date, see the cases collected at 18A Ala. Digest Trial § 9(1) (1956), a party's right to procedural due process is nonetheless violated if he is denied his day in court because the court, acting through its clerk, assumed the duty of notifying that party of his scheduled trial date and then negligently failed to do so.
The circuit court's dismissal of Weeks's appeal, on the facts presented, lacked one of the fundamental attributes of a fair judicial proceedingthe opportunity for all of the parties to be heardand could never be upheld where justice is fairly administered. Because the sole object and only legitimate end of state government (including the judicial branch of state government) is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, it would surely amount to "usurpation and oppression" by this state's judicial branch of government if this branch failed to recognize Weeks's right to procedural due process and he was not afforded his day in court. Article I, § 35, Ala. Const.
Because Weeks did not learn that his case had been dismissed until after the time for taking an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals had run, the extraordinary writ of mandamus is the only remedy available to him. Therefore, because all of the other requirements necessary for the issuance of a writ of mandamus are satisfied in this case, see Martin v. Loeb &amp; Co., 349 So. 2d 9 (Ala.1977), we hereby direct the circuit court to reinstate Weeks's appeal to the trial docket.[1]
WRIT GRANTED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES, ADAMS, STEAGALL, KENNEDY and INGRAM, JJ., concur.
[1]  We note that Weeks's appeal was dismissed by a district judge who had been temporarily assigned to the Morgan County Circuit Court. The record indicates that this judge was no longer assigned to the circuit court at the time Weeks learned that his appeal had been dismissed. Weeks's petition asks for a writ directed to the Honorable R.L. Hundley, the presiding judge of the Morgan County Circuit Court. Although it would be preferable for the writ to be directed to the judge who actually dismissed Weeks's appeal, that is not possible here. Even so, Judge Hundley has the authority to reinstate Weeks's appeal, see Ala.Code 1975, § 12-1-7 ("[e]very court shall have power ... [t]o amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice"), and, given the circumstances, is under a duty to do so. Therefore, a writ of mandamus directed to Judge Hundley is proper in this case. See Shirey v. City Board of Education of Fort Payne, 266 Ala. 185, 94 So. 2d 758 (1957).