In a case that outlines important distinctions between venue and jurisdiction, the Alabama Supreme Court recently presided over the appeal of Ex parte Joshua Lashawn Booth. Originally arising from the Bibb Circuit Court in Bibb County, Alabama, this case explores the proper channels for challenging Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) decisions regarding correctional incentive time, while simultaneously offering insight into the proper timing for improper venue objections.

In 2018, Joshua Lashawn Booth was convicted of three counts of possession of obscene material in violation of §13A-12-192 of the Alabama Code. Booth was subsequently sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Four years later, in 2022, Booth filed a motion, which he stylized as an “application for a write of habeas corpus,” in the Bibb Circuit Court. In the motion, Booth challenged ADOC’s refusal to grant correctional incentive time. Although §14-9-41(e) prohibits correctional incentive time for sex offense convictions involving children, Booth argued that the statute was inapplicable to his offense, as §14-9-41(e) defines “sex offense” as involving a child under the age of 12, whereas §13A-12-192 encompasses material depicting persons under the age of 17.

Initially, the Bibb Circuit Court heard Booth’s writ, and held that Booth was entitled to correctional incentive time. Following the circuit court ruling, ADOC appealed to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. On appeal, ADOC raised the issue of improper venue for the first time. ADOC argued that the motion should have been stylized as a petition for a writ of certiorari and should have been filed in the Montgomery Circuit Court rather than the Bibb Circuit Court. The Court of Appeals embraced ADOC’s argument, citing Cook v. Alabama Department of Corrections, a case which held that ADOC decisions on correctional incentive time should be treated as petitions for writs of certiorari and filed with the Montgomery Circuit Court. In doing so, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment from the Bibb Circuit Court. Judge Minor, in his concurring opinion, expressed concerns about venue being treated as a jurisdictional issue under §6-3-9 of the Alabama Code. Judge Minor noted that, at the circuit court level, ADOC’s argument was entirely based on substantive grounds, not procedural grounds, with venue being raised for the first time on appeal.

The Supreme Court of Alabama then granted certiorari, with the goal of determining whether the Court of Appeals’ decision conflicted with the established precedents of Ex parte Culbreth and Ex parte Tanksley. In Culbreth, the Court held that the statutory requirement for filing “in the nearest circuit court” was an issue of venue, not jurisdiction. Therefore, objections to improper venue are waived if the objections are not timely raised. In Tanksley, the Court found that the plaintiffs had waived the right to challenge venue after failing to object in a timely manner. Taken together, these cases indicate that ADOC should have promptly raised the issue of venue.

After reviewing the relevant precedent, the Court held that, because ADOC failed to object to venue in the Bibb Circuit Court, the improper venue objection was waived. §6-3-9 pertains solely to venue, and venue is waivable. Upon closer inspection, the Court of Appeals had relied on inapplicable precedent, with none of the cases cited being justified solely on improper venue. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the case, remanding for proceedings consistent with its opinion. In doing so, the Court effectively rejected the holding of Cook and cemented its interpretation of the venue requirements under §6-3-9.

Ex parte Joshua Lashawn Booth offers critical insight into the distinction between venue and jurisdiction, and the proper time to raise an objection for improper venue. Although the Bibb Circuit Court may have been an improper venue, by failing to object to the Bibb Circuit Court, ADOC waived their ability to raise the issue in the Court of Appeals, illustrating the importance of timely objections for improper venue. This quality distinguishes objections for improper venue from objections based on jurisdiction, which have less stringent timeliness requirements.

If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case in the Northern District of Alabama, Middle District of Alabama, Southern District of Alabama, or any federal jurisdiction in the Eleventh Circuit, including Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, contact Joe Ingram or Joe Ingram Law LLC at 205-825-LAWS or 205-335-2640. Get Relief * Get Results.