74 So. 3d 479
Ala. Crim. App.2011Background
- Wyre petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel granting in forma pauperis (IFP) status for a postconviction petition in Baldwin County.
- Wyre filed a Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., postconviction petition in Baldwin Circuit Court in January 2011 seeking IFP status.
- Judge Robert Wilters denied Wyre’s IFP request on January 26, 2011, prompting the mandamus petition.
- Wyre argued he had 28 cents in his inmate account and a 12‑month average balance of $30.74, claiming indigence and lack of funds.
- Rule 32.6(a) allows consideration of the petitioner’s 12‑month inmate deposits, certificates, and information to determine indigence.
- Wyre’s inmate-account deposits for the prior 12 months totaled $876.52, with months of higher deposits, exceeding the filing fee of $249.50; court held Wyre not indigent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Wyre indigent for IFP under Rule 32.6(a)? | Wyre argues indigence due to minimal funds. | Wilters found sufficient funds in Wyre’s account to pay the fee. | Wyre not indigent; deposits exceed required amount; no abuse of discretion. |
| Is a written, specific finding of indigency required when denying IFP? | Lucas requires written findings. | Rule 24(a) not applicable to initial IFP request; James permits denial without detailed findings. | Findings not mandatory; mandamus affirmed denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Holley, 883 So. 2d 266 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) (indigence defined; substantial hardship not shown by deposits)
- James v. State, 61 So. 3d 357 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010) (reaffirms no mandatory written findings for IFP denial)
- Lucas v. State, 597 So. 2d 759 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992) (circuit court need not make mandatory written findings for indigency)
- Goldsmith v. State, 709 So. 2d 1352 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997) (mandamus is proper vehicle to review IFP rulings)