Court Opinion

ID: 9381998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 15:02:22.528479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:36.305942
License: Public Domain

Rel: March 24, 2023

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) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

                 Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
                               OCTOBER TERM, 2022-2023
                                _________________________

                                         CR-2022-0505
                                   _________________________

                                       Town of Brookside

                                                      v.

                               Michael Christopher Rowser

                        Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court
                             (CC-21-2246, CC-21-2248,
                           CC-21-2249, and CC-21-2250)
                             _________________________

                                         CR-2022-0506
                                   _________________________

                                       Town of Brookside

                                                      v.

                                          Nathaniel Neay

                       Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court
                       (CC-21-2251, CC-21-2252, CC-21-2253,
                      CC-21-2254, CC-21-2255, and CC-21-2256)
        _________________________

              CR-2022-0507
        _________________________

          Town of Brookside

                   v.

             Alexus Young

  Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court
(CC-21-2779, CC-21-2780, and CC-21-2781)

        _________________________

              CR-2022-0508
        _________________________

          Town of Brookside

                   v.

            Melissa Jo Leith

  Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court
              (CC-21-680)
       _________________________

              CR-2022-0509
        _________________________

          Town of Brookside

                   v.

       Sandra Crawford Martin

                   2
                Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court
                     (CC-21-2788, CC-21-2789,
                   CC-21-2790, and CC-21-2791)
                     _________________________

                             CR-2022-0824
                       _________________________

                          Town of Brookside

                                   v.

                       Gregory Bernard Jones

              Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court
              (CC-21-1165, CC-21-1166, CC-22-1167,
             CC-22-1168, CC-22-1169, and CC-22-1170)

MINOR, Judge.

     We have consolidated these six appeals to address in one opinion

the following issue: Whether the Jefferson Circuit Court erred in

dismissing charges based solely on its determination before trial that the

prosecution’s witnesses were not credible. Although a circuit court has

the authority to make credibility determinations under certain

circumstances, it lacks the authority to dismiss charges pretrial based

solely on its determination that the prosecution’s witnesses are not

credible. Thus, we hold that the circuit court erred, and we reverse its

judgments.

                                    3
CR-2022-0505, CR-2022-0506, CR-2022-0507, CR-2022-0508, CR-2022-
0509, and CR-2022-0824

                FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

     In separate cases, the Town of Brookside ("the Town") charged

Michael Christopher Rowser, Nathaniel Neay, Alexus Young, Melissa Jo

Leith, Sandra Crawford Martin, and Gregory Bernard Jones ("the

defendants") with violations of Brookside municipal ordinances. 1 The

     1The  Town charged Rowser with unlawful possession of a firearm,
see § 13A-11-72, Ala. Code 1975 (CC-21-2246); driving under the
influence of a controlled substance (marijuana), see § 32-5A-191(a)(3),
Ala. Code 1975 (CC-21-2248); unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia,
see § 13A-12-260, Ala. Code 1975 (CC-21-2249); and criminal trespass by
motor vehicle, see § 13A-7-4.1, Ala. Code 1975 (CC-21-2250).

      The Town charged Neay with reckless driving, see § 32-5A-190, Ala.
Code 1975 (CC-21-2251); driving under the influence, see § 32-5A-
191(a)(5), Ala. Code 1975 (CC-21-2252); driving with a suspended license,
see § 32-6-19, Ala. Code 1975 (CC-21-2253); attempting to elude a law-
enforcement officer, see § 13A-10-52, Ala. Code 1975 (CC-21-2254);
resisting arrest, see § 13A-10-41, Ala. Code 1975 (CC-21-2255); and
operating a vehicle without liability insurance, see § 32-7A-16, Ala. Code
1975 (CC-21-2256).

      The Town charged Young with unlawful possession of drug
paraphernalia, see § 13A-12-260, Ala. Code 1975 (CC-21-2779); failure to
stop at a stop sign, see § 32-5A-112(b), Ala. Code 1975 (CC-21-2780); and
driving under the influence, see § 32-5A-191(a)(5), Ala. Code 1975 (CC-
21-2781).

     The Town charged Leith with driving under the influence of a
controlled substance (alcohol), see § 32-5A-191(a)(2), Ala. Code 1975 (CC-
21-0680).

                                    4
CR-2022-0505, CR-2022-0506, CR-2022-0507, CR-2022-0508, CR-2022-
0509, and CR-2022-0824

municipal court found the defendants guilty as charged, and the

defendants each appealed to the Jefferson Circuit Court for trials de novo

on their respective charges.

     In the circuit court, Rowser moved to dismiss the charges against

him, asserting "that the charges … were frivolous and 'trumped up.' " His

motion cited "recent allegations against the [Town's] systemic arrest

patterns by former and current officers of the [Brookside Police]

Department such as adding additional charges on citizens without

probable cause, officers abusing their power and authority during stops

by not allowing citizens to show proof of things such as car insurance

documents or permits for guns." (Record in CR-2022-0505, C. 67.) The

      The Town charged Martin with obstructing government operations,
see § 13A-10-2, Ala. Code 1975 (CC-21-2788); failure to display insurance,
see § 32-7A-16(b)(1), Ala. Code 1975 (CC-21-2789); resisting arrest, see §
13A-10-41, Ala. Code 1975 (CC-21-2790); and disorderly conduct, see §
13A-11-7, Ala. Code 1975 (CC-21-2791).

      The Town charged Jones with second-degree unlawful possession of
marijuana, see § 13A-12-214, Ala. Code 1975 (CC-21-1165); unlawful
possession of drug paraphernalia, see § 13A-12-260, Ala. Code 1975 (CC-
21-1166); unlawful possession of a firearm, see § 13A-11-72(a), Ala. Code
1975 (CC-22-1167); failure to stop at a stop sign, see § 32-5A-112(b), Ala.
Code 1975 (CC-22-1168); failure to display insurance, see § 32-7A-
16(b)(1), Ala. Code 1975 (CC-22-1169); and driving under the influence of
a controlled substance, see § 32-5A-191(a)(2), Ala. Code 1975 (CC-22-
1170).
                                    5
CR-2022-0505, CR-2022-0506, CR-2022-0507, CR-2022-0508, CR-2022-
0509, and CR-2022-0824

Town objected to the motion, asserting that Rowser could not, under Rule

13.5(c)(1), Ala. R. Crim. P., challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in a

pretrial motion. (Record in CR-2022-505, C. 70.) The Town also asserted

that the motion depended only on "media allegations and community

rumors." (Id.) None of the other defendants moved to dismiss the charges

in the circuit court. 2

      The circuit court set pretrial hearings in the defendants' cases.3

After the pretrial hearings, the circuit court dismissed the charges

against the defendants, entering this identical order for each defendant:

      "Due to the lack of credibility and public trust of the Brookside
      Police Department under previous police leadership, all cases
      where the sole witness to the offense is a Brookside Police
      Officer will be met with heavy scrutiny by this Court.

      "The only witness to the above-referenced case is a Brookside
      Police Officer.

      2Martin moved to dismiss the cases against her in the municipal
court, asserting that the complaint was insufficient and not sworn.
Martin asserted in a supplemental motion that the Town had engaged in
a "ruse of hiding the names of the complaining officers … to confuse
arrested person and deter complaints." The municipal court denied the
motion.

      3The  circuit court set a pretrial hearing for March 15, 2022, in the
cases against defendants Rowser, Neay, Young, Leith, and Martin. The
court set a pretrial hearing for June 21, 2022, in Jones's case.

                                     6
CR-2022-0505, CR-2022-0506, CR-2022-0507, CR-2022-0508, CR-2022-
0509, and CR-2022-0824

     "Therefore, the above-referenced case is hereby DISMISSED,
     with prejudice, by the court over the objection of the Brookside
     city prosecutor …"4

(Record in CR-2022-0505, C. 35; CR-2022-0506, C. 10; CR-2022-0507, C.

10; CR-2022-0508, C. 14; CR-2022-0509, C. 5; CR-22-0824, C. 10.)

     The Town timely appealed. See Rule 15.7, Ala. R. Crim. P.

                              DISCUSSION

                                    I.

     Before turning to the merits, we address two procedural matters:

(1) the defendants' motions to dismiss the Town's appeals and (2) which

trial-court cases are before us.

              A. MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE APPEALS

     All defendants except Jones have moved to dismiss the Town's

appeals. The defendants assert in their motions to dismiss that this

Court lacks jurisdiction because, they say, a municipality "may appeal

only where the circuit court holds an ordinance invalid." They assert that

     4The  circuit court entered the order in Jones's case on June 21,
2022, the day of the pretrial hearing in his case. The court entered the
dismissal orders on March 16, 2022, in the other cases, the day after
holding the pretrial hearing in those case.

      As noted below, the court entered one order for each defendant and
listed in the order all the case numbers for that defendant.
                                    7
CR-2022-0505, CR-2022-0506, CR-2022-0507, CR-2022-0508, CR-2022-
0509, and CR-2022-0824

no statute authorizes the Town to appeal a pretrial judgment dismissing

a case. In support of that assertion, they rely on § 12-14-71, Ala. Code

1975, Rule 30.1(b), Ala. R. Crim. P., Dixon v. City of Mobile, 859 So. 2d

462 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003), and City of Montgomery v. Mark C. Montiel,

P.C., 192 So. 3d 413 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015).

     Section 12-14-71, Ala. Code 1975, states, in part: "From the

judgment of the circuit court, the municipality, in a case holding invalid

an ordinance … may appeal to the court of criminal appeals in like

manner as in cases of appeals for convictions of violation of the criminal

laws of the state." Rule 30.1(b), Ala. R. Crim. P., similarly provides:

"From a judgment of the municipal court holding an ordinance invalid,

the municipality may appeal to the circuit court, without bond, within

fourteen (14) days of the date of the judgment or the denial of a timely

filed post-judgment motion."

     In Dixon, supra, the Mobile municipal court entered a judgment

finding Daniel Harris Dixon guilty of violating an ordinance and

sentenced him to 180 days in jail. Dixon appealed for a trial de novo in

the circuit court, but when he failed to appear, the circuit court granted

the City's motion to dismiss the appeal. Dixon then appealed to this

                                    8
CR-2022-0505, CR-2022-0506, CR-2022-0507, CR-2022-0508, CR-2022-
0509, and CR-2022-0824

Court, but we held that the judgment dismissing the appeal was not

appealable because there was "no statute or rule of court authorizing the

appeal of a circuit court's dismissal of a de novo appeal and the return of

the case to the lower court for enforcement of that court's judgment." 859

So. 2d at 464. We explained: "This action is not an appeal from a final

judgment of conviction entered in the circuit court but is instead an

appeal from a ruling dismissing a de novo appeal from a judgment of

conviction entered in a municipal court." Id.

      In City of Montgomery, supra, "the City issued a 'Notice of

Violation' to 'Mark G. PC Montiel' asserting that the operator of a vehicle

owned by that entity had failed to stop at a red light within the city limits

of the City."5 192 So. 3d at 414. The Montgomery municipal court found

Montiel liable for the violation. Montiel appealed to the circuit court, and,

after a hearing, the circuit court entered a judgment in Montiel's favor.

Id.

      5Ina footnote, the Court of Civil Appeals explained: "The record
indicates that Mark G. Montiel, an attorney, formed a professional
corporation, 'Mark G. Montiel, P.C.,' which owned the vehicle in question.
The notice erroneously designated the owner as 'Mark. G. PC Montiel.' "
192 So. 3d at 414 n.1.
                                     9
CR-2022-0505, CR-2022-0506, CR-2022-0507, CR-2022-0508, CR-2022-
0509, and CR-2022-0824

     The City appealed the judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals.

Examining § 12-14-71, that court concluded:

     "By the plain wording of § 12-14-71, following an appeal de
     novo to the circuit court from a judgment of a municipal court,
     a municipality can appeal further only if the circuit court has
     invalidated one of its ordinances, and, in that case, the appeal
     would be to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Section
     12-14-71 does not provide for appeals to this court in any
     case."

192 So. 3d at 415. Finding no statutory basis for the City's appeal, the

Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the appeal. Id. at 417.

     Based on those authorities, the defendants argue that, because the

circuit court did not invalidate an ordinance, no authority authorizes the

Town's appeals. We disagree.

     Rule 15.7(a), Ala. R. Crim. P., provides:

     "In any case involving a felony, a misdemeanor, or a violation,
     an appeal may be taken by the state to the Court of Criminal
     Appeals from a pre-trial order of the circuit court (1)
     suppressing a confession or admission or other evidence, (2)
     dismissing an indictment, information, or complaint (or any
     part of an indictment, information, or complaint), or (3)
     quashing an arrest or search warrant. Such an appeal may be
     taken only if the prosecutor certifies to the Court of Criminal
     Appeals that the appeal is not brought for the purpose of delay
     and that the order, if not reversed on appeal, will be fatal to
     the prosecution of the charge. A municipality may appeal any
     pre-trial order entered by the circuit court on trial de novo of
     any municipal ordinance violation, in like manner."

                                   10
CR-2022-0505, CR-2022-0506, CR-2022-0507, CR-2022-0508, CR-2022-
0509, and CR-2022-0824

(Emphasis added.) This rule authorizes the State to appeal a pretrial

order of the circuit court "dismissing an indictment, information, or

complaint" and authorizes a municipality to do the same "in like

manner." Thus, given its plain meaning, the language of Rule 15.7(a),

Ala. R. Crim. P., authorizes the Town's appeals from pretrial orders of

the circuit court dismissing complaints.

     The defendants argue, however, that the decisions in Dixon and

Montiel restrict or supplant that part of Rule 15.7(a), Ala. R. Crim. P.,

which became effective in 1997, authorizing the Town's pretrial appeals.

In the defendants' view, this Court may not read Rule 15.7(a) as

expanding the appellate jurisdiction of this Court beyond what the

legislature has given this Court by statute. They thus argue that the only

"logical interpretation" of Rule 15.7(a) is that it merely authorizes a

municipality to appeal a judgment invalidating an ordinance. These

arguments are unavailing.

     First, as noted above, the language of Rule 15.7(a) authorizes the

Town's appeals. See, e.g., DeKalb Cnty. LP Gas Co. v. Suburban Gas,

Inc., 729 So. 2d 270, 275 (Ala. 1998) (" ' "[W]here plain language is used a

                                    11
CR-2022-0505, CR-2022-0506, CR-2022-0507, CR-2022-0508, CR-2022-
0509, and CR-2022-0824

court is bound to interpret that language to mean exactly what it says" ' "

(quoting Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Nielsen, 714 So. 2d 293, 296 (Ala.

1998), quoting in turn IMED Corp. v. Systems Eng'g Assocs. Corp., 602

So. 2d 344, 346 (Ala. 1992))).

     Second, Dixon is distinguishable because it did not involve a

pretrial appeal by a municipality. Thus, Rule 15.7 had no application.

     Third, to the point that City of Montgomery suggests that only a

statute and not a rule may authorize an appeal, that is incorrect. As this

Court in Dixon recognized, a statute or a rule of court may authorize an

appeal. Dixon, 859 So. 2d at 464 ("We can find no statute or rule of court

authorizing the appeal ….").

     Fourth, neither Dixon nor City of Montgomery could limit Rule 15.7

because, as intermediate appellate courts, neither this Court nor the

Court of Civil Appeals may modify or abrogate a Rule of Procedure

adopted by the Alabama Supreme Court—the Alabama Constitution

gives that power only to the Alabama Supreme Court and the legislature.

Art. VI, § 150, Ala. Const. 2022 ("The supreme court shall make and

promulgate rules governing the administration of all courts and rules

governing practice and procedure in all courts; provided, however, that

                                    12
CR-2022-0505, CR-2022-0506, CR-2022-0507, CR-2022-0508, CR-2022-
0509, and CR-2022-0824

such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive right of

any party nor affect the jurisdiction of circuit and district courts or venue

of actions therein; and provided, further, that the right of trial by jury as

at common law and declared by section 11 of the Constitution of Alabama

1901 shall be preserved to the parties inviolate. These rules may be

changed by a general act of statewide application."). See also § 12-3-16,

Ala. Code 1975 ("The decisions of the Supreme Court shall govern the

holdings and decisions of the courts of appeals, and the decisions and

proceedings of such courts of appeals shall be subject to the general

superintendence and control of the Supreme Court as provided by

Constitutional Amendment No. 328.").

     Finally, the defendants are wrong in their assertion that reading

Rule 15.7 to allow the Town's appeals is an improper "expansion" of this

Court's appellate jurisdiction. Section 12-3-9, Ala. Code 1975, provides:

"The Court of Criminal Appeals shall have exclusive appellate

jurisdiction of all misdemeanors, including the violation of town and city

ordinances, habeas corpus and all felonies, including all post conviction

writs in criminal cases."      And Article VI, § 141, of the Alabama

Constitution of 2022, provides: "The court of criminal appeals … shall

                                     13
CR-2022-0505, CR-2022-0506, CR-2022-0507, CR-2022-0508, CR-2022-
0509, and CR-2022-0824

exercise appellate jurisdiction under such terms and conditions as shall

be provided by law and by rules of the supreme court." (Emphasis added.)

Rule 15.7 does not expand this Court's appellate jurisdiction beyond what

is authorized by § 12-3-9. Rather, Rule 15.7 merely allows a municipality

to invoke this Court's appellate jurisdiction over certain pretrial rulings

in cases over which this Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Thus,

Rule 15.7 is a valid exercise of the Alabama Supreme Court's

constitutional rule-making authority.

     The defendants' motions to dismiss lack merit, and we deny them.

                       B. NOTICES OF APPEAL

     We now turn to which cases are before us on appeal. In docketing

these cases, this Court at first included only one circuit-court case

number for some defendants because, for those defendants, the Town e-

filed its notice of appeal and supporting documents under only one

circuit-court case number pertaining to those defendants. For the reasons

below, however, we conclude that all the charges that the circuit court

dismissed are properly before us.

                                    14
CR-2022-0505, CR-2022-0506, CR-2022-0507, CR-2022-0508, CR-2022-
0509, and CR-2022-0824

     With one exception, the circuit court dismissed multiple charges

against each defendant. 6 The circuit court issued one order for each

defendant and in each order listed the different case numbers for the

charges it was dismissing.

     Addressing the form and content of the notice of appeal, Rule 3(c),

Ala. R. App. P, provides:

           "The notice of appeal shall specify all parties taking the
     appeal and each adverse party against whom the appeal is
     taken; shall designate the judgment, order, or part thereof
     appealed from; and shall name the court to which the appeal
     is taken. Such designation of judgment or order shall not,
     however, limit the scope of appellate review. An appellant
     may not use the terms 'et al.' or 'etc.' to designate multiple
     appellants or appellees in lieu of naming each appellant or
     appellee.

           "If the notice of appeal names the wrong appellate court
     to which the appeal is taken, such designation shall be treated
     as a clerical mistake and corrected accordingly. The necessary
     clerical steps shall be taken to docket the appeal and to file
     the record and briefs in the appropriate appellate court."

     Rule 3(e), Ala. R. App. P., requires an appellant to submit with a

notice of appeal "the appropriate 'Docketing Statement' (Form 24, 25, or

26)." Rule 3(e) states, however, that an "appellant's failure to file the

docketing statement with the notice of appeal shall not affect the validity

     6The   circuit court dismissed only one charge against Leith.
                                    15
CR-2022-0505, CR-2022-0506, CR-2022-0507, CR-2022-0508, CR-2022-
0509, and CR-2022-0824

of the notice of appeal." And "[i]f the notice of appeal is tendered to the

clerk of the trial court without a properly completed docketing

statement," Rule 3(e) requires the trial-court clerk to notify the appellant

of the requirements of Rule 3 to give the appellant a chance to correct the

deficiency.

     As for how to file the notice of appeal, Rule 3(a)(2), Ala. R. App. P.,

provides:

           "In criminal cases, an appeal permitted by law as a
     matter of right to an appellate court shall be taken by filing a
     written notice of appeal with the clerk of the trial court within
     the time allowed by Rule 4, or by the defendant's giving an
     oral notice of appeal at the time of sentencing, which oral
     notice shall be noted of record; provided, that a pre-trial
     appeal by the State shall be taken by filing a written notice of
     appeal in the manner, and within the time, specified by the
     rule of criminal procedure providing for such appeals. The
     notice of appeal may be filed electronically with the trial court
     clerk through the trial court's electronic-filing system. On the
     date the notice of appeal is filed, the clerk of the trial court
     shall serve copies of the notice of appeal on the persons
     specified by (d)(2) or (d)(3) of this rule."

(Emphasis added.) The provision for electronic filing of the notice of

appeal was added by an amendment to Rule 3(a), effective October 1,

2019. The Committee Comment to that amendment states:

                                    16
CR-2022-0505, CR-2022-0506, CR-2022-0507, CR-2022-0508, CR-2022-
0509, and CR-2022-0824

     "[T]he amendment to Rule 3(a) allows an appellant to file the
     notice of appeal using the trial court's electronic-filing system
     within the time provided for filing a notice of appeal. …

           "If the notice of appeal is filed electronically, under Rule
     3(d)(3), the clerk of the trial court may serve the notice of
     appeal electronically on the appropriate appellate court, the
     parties registered in the trial court's electronic-filing system,
     and the court reporter. The amendment to Rule 3(e) requires
     an appellant who files the notice of appeal electronically to
     also    file    the     docketing     statement      electronically
     simultaneously with the notice of appeal."

     For each defendant, the Town prepared a written notice of appeal,

a docketing statement (UJS Form ARAP-26), and a reporter's transcript

order – criminal (UJS Form ARAP-1C) listing the defendant's name and

all the circuit-court case numbers for the cases from which the Town was

appealing. See Rule 3(e) and Rule 10(c), Ala. R. App. P. For defendants

Rowser, Neay, Young, and Martin, however, the Town e-filed those

documents under only one of the trial-court case numbers for each

defendant.7 For example, the Town e-filed the documents under only

     7In Leith's case, the circuit court dismissed only one charge, and the
Town e-filed its notice of appeal, docketing statement, and reporter's
transcript request under that trial-court case number.

      In the Town's appeal of the judgment dismissing the six cases
against Jones, the Town e-filed identical notices of appeal in each of the
six circuit court cases.
                                     17
CR-2022-0505, CR-2022-0506, CR-2022-0507, CR-2022-0508, CR-2022-
0509, and CR-2022-0824

case no. CC-2021-2246 for Rowser. Those documents listed all four cases

numbers that the circuit court included in its order dismissing the

charges against Rowser: CC-2021-2246; CC-2021-2248; CC-2021-2249;

and CC-2021-2250. The Town e-filed similar documents in the appeals

in the cases involving Neay, Young, and Martin.

     This Court has not addressed whether, when a trial court enters a

single judgment disposing of multiple trial-court cases, an appellant

must e-file a separate notice of appeal under each trial-court case

number.    Rule 57, Ala. R. App. P., which addresses e-filing in the

appellate courts, does not address this issue or state than an appellant

must e-file a separate notice of appeal under each trial-court case number

in consolidated or related cases.

     The original Committee Comments to Rule 3, Ala. R. App. P.,

effective December 1, 1975, states: "[T]he intent of this rule is to provide

a uniform and simplified method of taking an appeal, and it is

contemplated that a single notice will be filed." That comment fits with

(1) the designation in Rule 3(c) of the filing of a notice of appeal in the

wrong appellate court as a clerical mistake and (2) the requirement that

the respective clerk's office take the "necessary clerical steps" to correct

                                    18
CR-2022-0505, CR-2022-0506, CR-2022-0507, CR-2022-0508, CR-2022-
0509, and CR-2022-0824

such an error and docket the appeal in the correct court. And those

provisions align with (1) the instruction to appellate courts in Rule 1, Ala.

R. App. P., to "construe[] [the Rules of Appellate Procedure] so as to

assure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every appellate

proceeding on its merits" and (2) the power that Rule 2(b), Ala. R. App.

P., gives to appellate courts to "suspend the requirements or provisions

of any of these rules in a particular case" to "expedit[e] decision, or for

other good cause shown."

     In Hossley v. Hossley, 264 So. 3d 893, 897 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018), the

Court of Civil Appeals examined a notice of appeal that included only one

of the underlying circuit-court case numbers:

           "At the outset, we must determine from what action the
     former husband has actually appealed and whether he has
     appealed from a final judgment. ' "Generally, an appeal will
     lie only from a final judgment, and if there is not a final
     judgment then this court is without jurisdiction to hear the
     appeal." ' Moore v. Strickland, 54 So. 3d 906, 908 (Ala. Civ.
     App. 2010) (quoting Sexton v. Sexton, 42 So. 3d 1280, 1282
     (Ala. Civ. App. 2010)). The record contains documents from
     only the .02 action, the former husband's docketing statement
     references only the .02 action, the former husband states on
     his notice of appeal that he appeals from the order denying
     his motion to set aside the default judgment, and his appellate
     brief references only the .02 action. An appellant's designation
     of a judgment or order on his notice of appeal does not limit
     the scope of appellate review, see Rule 3(a)(c), Ala. R. App. P.,

                                     19
CR-2022-0505, CR-2022-0506, CR-2022-0507, CR-2022-0508, CR-2022-
0509, and CR-2022-0824

     and this court may treat a notice of appeal that is filed in one
     consolidated case as being effective as to the other
     consolidated case when the intention to appeal the judgments
     in both cases is clear, see R.J.G. v. S.S.W., 42 So. 3d 747, 751
     n.2 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). Although the .02 action and the .03
     action were consolidated, neither action was dismissed and
     'each action retains its separate identity so as to require the
     entry of separate judgments.' Casey v. Casey, 109 So. 3d 199,
     204 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012)."

(Emphasis added.) Looking to the .03 action, the Court of Civil Appeals

held that the circuit court had not entered a final judgment in that case

and that, because the circuit court had not entered a final judgment in

both cases, the Court of Civil Appeals lacked jurisdiction over the .02

action. Id. at 897-98.

     Here, the Town had the "intention to appeal" all cases that the

circuit court had dismissed against each defendant. See Hossley, supra.

The notice of appeal that the Town e-filed in Rowser's, Neay's, Young's,

Leith's, and Martin's cases listed all circuit-court case numbers that the

circuit court dismissed against those defendants. For each defendant, the

Town also e-filed a docketing statement and a reporter's transcript order

listing each defendant's name and all the circuit-court case numbers the

Town was appealing. And the clerk's record on appeal includes

documents for all the circuit-court case numbers listed on the notice of

                                   20
CR-2022-0505, CR-2022-0506, CR-2022-0507, CR-2022-0508, CR-2022-
0509, and CR-2022-0824

appeal for each defendant. Finally, each defendant included in its

materials to this Court all the circuit-court case numbers that the Town

listed in its notices of appeal.

      Although the better practice might be for an appellant who e-files a

notice of appeal to e-file a notice under each trial-court case number that

the appellant wants to appeal (as the Town did in Jones's case),8 no rule

of procedure prohibits what the Town did with some of the appeals in this

case (i.e., e-filing the notice under only one of the circuit-court case

numbers for each defendant), and we know of no authority requiring the

Town to have e-filed a notice of appeal under each circuit-court case

number.     Based on the authorities above, we hold that, under the

      8In some circumstances, e-filing a notice under each circuit-court
case number would be much more burdensome than (1) e-filing a single
notice of appeal with multiple case numbers or (2) filing a written notice
of appeal listing all case numbers.

      Two recent appeals are illustrative. In Wesson v. State, [Ms. CR-
18-0790, December 16, 2020] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2020), a jury
convicted the defendant of 56 separate counts charged in a single case
number. By contrast, in Fulgham v. State (No. CR-19-0237), 346 So. 3d
539 (Ala. Crim. App. 2020) (table), a jury convicted the defendant of 92
counts charged in 92 separate case numbers. The defendant in Fulgham
filed a single, written notice of appeal with the circuit clerk listing the 92
separate case numbers. Cf. Wadsworth v. State, 507 So. 2d 572, 573 (Ala.
Crim. App. 1987) ("This Court can take judicial notice of its own
records.").
                                     21
CR-2022-0505, CR-2022-0506, CR-2022-0507, CR-2022-0508, CR-2022-
0509, and CR-2022-0824

circumstances, all the cases that the circuit court dismissed are properly

before us on appeal.

    II. THE CIRCUIT COURT'S PRETRIAL DISMISSAL OF THE
                        CHARGES

     The Town argues that the circuit court lacked authority to dismiss

the charges against the defendants for the reasons it stated. The Town

asserts that Rule 13.5, Ala. R. Crim. P., does not permit a trial court to

dismiss charges based on pretrial findings about the credibility of

witnesses or "unsubstantiated media conjecture and public clamor."

(Town's brief in CR-20-0505, p. 9.) In response, some defendants raise

procedural objections to the Town's appeals such as the objection we

addressed in denying the defendant's motions to dismiss the Town's

appeals. Rowser, who moved to dismiss the charges in the circuit court,

also argues generally that his motion to dismiss stated sufficient reasons

for the circuit court to dismiss the charges. We agree with the Town.

     Rule 13.5(c)(1), Ala. R. Crim. P., provides: " A motion to dismiss the

indictment may be based upon objections to the venire, the lack of legal

qualifications of an individual grand juror, the legal insufficiency of the

indictment, or the failure of the indictment to charge an offense." In State

                                    22
CR-2022-0505, CR-2022-0506, CR-2022-0507, CR-2022-0508, CR-2022-
0509, and CR-2022-0824

v. Starks, [Ms. CR-21-0048, May 6, 2022] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Crim. App.

2022), this Court examined Rule 13.5(c)(1) and stated: "[T]here is no

pretrial means to dismiss the charges against a defendant based on the

insufficiency of the evidence." In footnote 2 of Starks, this Court

acknowledged Ankrom v. State, 152 So. 3d 373 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011), in

which this Court recognized that a trial court could address pretrial the

limited question "whether the defendant's conduct could ever constitute

a violation of the charged statutes." Starks, ___ So. 3d at ___ n.2. But

unlike Ankrom, which involved a pretrial ruling on a " 'pure question of

law,' " the pretrial ruling in Starks was "based purely on a credibility

determination" and thus was improper. Id.        This Court in Starks

reiterated that a circuit court lacks authority under Rule 13.5(c)(1) to

dismiss the charges against a defendant pretrial based on an alleged

insufficiency of the evidence or "based purely on a credibility

determination." ___ So. 3d at ___ & n.2.

     The circuit court here dismissed the charges pretrial "based purely

on a credibility determination." What's more, in all but Rowser's cases,

the circuit court dismissed the charges without a motion from the

defendants. The prosecution objected to the dismissals, arguing that

                                   23
CR-2022-0505, CR-2022-0506, CR-2022-0507, CR-2022-0508, CR-2022-
0509, and CR-2022-0824

they were improper and that they were based on "media and public

clamor." 9 Under Starks and the authorities cited there, see, e.g., State v.

Foster, 935 So. 2d 1216 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005), State v. McClain, 911 So.

2d 54 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005), State v. Edwards, 590 So. 2d 379 (Ala. Crim.

App. 1991), the circuit court erred in dismissing the charges against the

defendants based on a pretrial determination of credibility, and we must

reverse its judgments.

     9In Ex parte Worley, 102 So. 3d 428 (Ala. 2010), the Supreme Court
recognized one exception to the rule that a trial court may not dismiss a
charge pretrial based on a lack of evidence or a credibility
determination—if the prosecution invites the error. The prosecution in
Worley invited the error because it did not argue that the defendant's
motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence was premature.

     Here, as the circuit court's uniform dismissal order stated, the
dismissal was "over the objection of the Brookside city prosecutor." As
noted, the circuit court acted sua sponte in dismissing the charges
against all defendants except Rowser, who moved to dismiss the charges
against him. The Town in Rowser's case objected to his motion in writing,
asserting that Rowser's motion challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence was improper under Rule 13.5(c)(1), Ala. R. Crim. P., and that
the motion depended only on "media allegations and community rumors."
(Record in CR-2022-505, C. 70.)

       We question whether the exception in Worley could apply to the
prosecution when a court acts sua sponte in dismissing charges before
trial. Even so, nothing suggests that the prosecution invited the error,
and thus the Worley exception does not apply.
                                    24
CR-2022-0505, CR-2022-0506, CR-2022-0507, CR-2022-0508, CR-2022-
0509, and CR-2022-0824

                            CONCLUSION

     We reverse the circuit court's judgments dismissing the charges,

and we instruct the circuit court to restore the defendants' cases to its

active docket.

     CR-2022-0505—REVERSED AND REMANDED.

     CR-2022-0506—REVERSED AND REMANDED.

     CR-2022-0507—REVERSED AND REMANDED.

     CR-2022-0508—REVERSED AND REMANDED.

     CR-2022-0509—REVERSED AND REMANDED.

     CR-2022-0824—REVERSED AND REMANDED.

     Windom, P.J., and Kellum, McCool, and Cole, JJ., concur.

                                   25