In a case that made its way to the highest level of the state court system, the Alabama Supreme Court recently presided over an appeal beginning in Walker County. This case, Ex parte David Eugene Files, centers around a Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief. Files’ petition was dismissed by the Walker circuit court, with the dismissal being affirmed by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Files appealed once more, leading to this decision.

David Eugene Files was indicted for murder in 2002. His counsel had a serious disagreement with the presiding judge assigned to his case, so Files filed a motion for recusal, which was granted. Files also sought the recusal of the replacement judge and was given a third presiding judge. The third judge found Files guilty of the murder and sentence him to life in prison. After receiving his sentence, despite not challenging the appointment during trial, Files filed yet another petition for postconviction relief, arguing that the third judge’s appointment was also improper. This petition was dismissed in Walker County and dismissed again by the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Files appealed the dismissal of his Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief to the Alabama Supreme Court. On appeal, Files argued that if a trial judge is disqualified under the Canons of Judicial Ethics, then that judge lacks the authority to appoint the successor judge. During the recusal of the initial judge, the judge had recused himself, and personally reassigned the case. Under Files’ interpretation, any subsequent actions by the successor judge were invalid due to the source of the appointment.

Files’ argument was supported by a previous holding by the Alabama Supreme Court, finding that a disqualified judge could not reassign a case under Rule 14 of the Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration without violating the Canons of Judicial Ethics. This case, Ex parte Jim Walter Homes, Inc, was a critical component of the Court’s analysis. Additionally, the Court looked to Lawler Manufacturing Co. v. Lawler, with addressed a similar issue.

As a counter to Files’ arguments, the State argued that Lawler should be interpreted as an expansion of the scope of Ex parte Jim Walter Homes. Under the State’s interpretation, although a judge appointment may be improper, the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction remains unaffected. This jurisdiction, the State argued, is derived from constitutional and statutory authority, and is unrelated to judge assignments under Rule 13.

The Court accepted the State’s argument, agreeing that subject-matter jurisdiction was proper in this case. The Court recognized that challenges to a judge’s disqualification are waivable, but subject-matter jurisdiction, in contrast, is not waivable. The Court interpreted Lawler as independent from the jurisdiction of the lower court. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Court of criminal Appeals, finding jurisdiction to be proper.

Ex parte David Eugene Files stands as an example of the intricacies of the law, and how different concepts interact to create a certain result. Although Files was correct in pointing out that the appointment came from a recused judge, the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction rendered this principle obsolete. This result demonstrates the complexities of procedure and ethics, and how different factors can work in tandem to create a legal result that is not necessarily intuitive based on the question presented.