Ex Parte State, 955 So. 2d 476

Isbell was arrested for DUI and failing to yield; breath test with Draeger showed .22 BAC.
Isbell pled guilty in Madison District Court and appealed for a trial de novo.
Isbell moved for discovery about the Draeger device, its history of malfunctions, repairs, or reports.
Judge Hall granted the discovery request after a hearing, enabling access to the Draeger-related data.
The State sought mandamus to vacate that discovery order, arguing about who bears the cost of collecting/copying data.
DFS custody of the data and doubt about who should bear costs under the discovery order were central issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Court has jurisdiction to hear mandamus	State argues this court has appellate jurisdiction over criminal-matter mandamus.	Isbell contends the matter falls under civil-appellate jurisdiction after Galanos/Smith line of cases.	This Court lacks jurisdiction; transfer to Civil Appeals is required.
Proper forum for funding/expense issue	State asserts the same mandamus posture applies to pretrial discovery costs.	Isbell emphasizes pretrial materials costs and right to fair trial do not implicate this court here.	Resolution of funding is controlled by Civil Appeals, not this Court.

Ex parte McNabb, 879 So.2d 1166 (Ala.2003) (determines proper appellate court for mandamus in certain criminal-matter contexts)
Ex parte Smith, 794 So.2d 1089 (Ala.2001) (discovery-material costs; mandamus proper forum questioned)
Ex parte Galanos, 796 So.2d 390 (Ala.2000) (indigent-defendant fees; mandamus jurisdiction discussed)
Ex parte Goodman, 43 Ala.App. 183 (Ala.App.1966) (mandamus jurisdiction in relation to appellate matters)
Nunn v. Baker, 518 So.2d 711 (Ala.1987) (courts may notice jurisdictional defects ex mero motu)