State of Alabama v. Jeri Bonar

majority opinion

Rel: June 26, 2026

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, 2025-2026

CR-2023-0629

State of Alabama

Jeri Bonar

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court

(DC-15-3187 and DC-15-3188)

On Return to Remand

MINOR, Judge.1

In this appeal we consider whether the Jefferson Circuit Court

erred in granting Jeri Bonar's motion to dismiss the cases against her.

We hold that the circuit court erred by finding that the State violated

1This case was previously assigned to another member of this Court

before it was reassigned to Judge Minor.

CR-2023-0629

Bonar's right to a speedy trial. Thus, we reverse the circuit court's

judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings.

Facts and Procedural History

Bonar was arrested in April 2015 on charges of second-degree

possession of a forged instrument, see § 13A-8-3, Ala. Code 1975, and

first-degree theft of property, see § 13A-9-6, Ala. Code 1975. Bonar

applied for admission to the mental-health court, and, over the State's

objection, the Jefferson District Court released her to a residential

substance-abuse facility. By agreement, the district court in September

2015 transferred Bonar's cases to "Judge Stephen Wallace for Mental

Health Court." Judge Wallace set a hearing in December 2015 to

determine Bonar's eligibility for mental-health court, but Bonar failed to

appear. Noting Bonar's failure to appear and her failure to "otherwise

cooperate with the mental health court staff," Judge Wallace directed the

clerk to issue an alias warrant for her arrest. (C. 14.) In May 2017, Judge

Wallace bound the cases "over to the circuit court to await action by the

grand jury." (C. 15.)

On February 12, 2018, the State moved to recall the alias writ of

arrest for Bonar, noting that the grand jury had indicted Bonar and that

CR-2023-0629

"the case is now pending in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County." (C.

73.) Two days later, Judge Wallace granted that motion.

In December 2021, Bonar's counsel moved to dismiss the charges,

asserting that the State had violated her right to a speedy trial. Circuit

Judge Shanta Owens denied that motion.

In August 2023, Bonar's counsel moved to dismiss the charges,

again asserting that Bonar's right to a speedy trial had been violated.

Circuit Judge Kandice E. Pickett held a hearing on the motion. The only

evidence presented at the hearing were the records in the case file, and

counsel for the State and for Bonar presented arguments. Bonar was not

present. After the hearing, Judge Pickett granted Bonar's motion to

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

Analysis

On appeal, the State argues (1) that Judge Pickett lacked the

authority to dismiss the indictment against Bonar and (2) that, even if

Judge Pickett had the authority to dismiss the indictment, she erred in

doing so.

I. The Jefferson Circuit Court, not the District Court, dismissed the

indictment.

CR-2023-0629

The State's first argument hinges on its confusion about which

court granted Bonar's motion to dismiss—the Jefferson District Court or

the Jefferson Circuit Court. The State's confusion about this issue stems

from references in the record to both courts.

Bonar's December 2021 motion to dismiss was styled "In the Circuit

Court of Jefferson County, Alabama," but the digital stamp states that it

was filed in the "District Court of Jefferson County, Alabama." In denying

that motion, Judge Owens signed the order as "District Judge," and the

digital stamp shows that it was filed in the "District Court of Jefferson

County, Alabama."

Bonar's August 2023 motion to dismiss, as well as the State's

response, is styled "In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama,"

but the digital stamp states, "District Court of Jefferson County,

Alabama." The reporter's transcript of the August 2023 hearing on

Bonar's motion states that the hearing was "In the Circuit Court of

Jefferson County[,] Tenth Judicial Circuit[,] Criminal Division," and

Judge Pickett, a circuit judge in the Tenth Judicial Circuit, signed the

order granting Bonar's motion as a "circuit judge." But the style of the

CR-2023-0629

order and the digital stamp state "District Court of Jefferson County,

Alabama."

First, we point out that the State's assertion on appeal that the

district court, rather than the circuit court, dismissed Bonar's indictment

is inconsistent with its position in the lower court and with its assertion

of its right to appeal to this Court under Rule 15.7, Ala. R. Crim. P. Cf.

Fountain v. State, 586 So. 2d 277, 282 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991) ("A party

cannot assume inconsistent positions at trial and on appeal …. Leverett

v. State, 462 So. 2d 972 (Ala. Cr. App. 1984) …."). Although the digital

stamp states "District Court," the State's response to Bonar's motion to

dismiss and the State's notice of appeal are styled "In the Circuit Court

of Jefferson County, Alabama," and the notice of appeal states that the

State is appealing the judgment to this Court under Rule 15.7, Ala. R.

Crim. P. Under that rule, the State has the right to appeal, under certain

circumstances, "a pre-trial order of the circuit court"—but the State has

no right under Rule 15.7 to appeal a judgment of the district court. Cf.

Rule 30.1(c), Ala. R. Crim. P. (giving the State or a municipality a right

to appeal certain decisions of the district court to the circuit court or to

this Court under Rule 30.2). Also, although the docketing statement for

CR-2023-0629

this Court and the Reporter's Transcript Order have the digital stamp

"District Court," the State checked the box "Circuit Court" on those

forms. (C. 23-25.)

This Court faced a similar situation in State v. MacGrady, 410 So.

3d 1158 (Ala. Crim. App. 2024). That case involved the same appellant

(the State), the same county (Jefferson), and a similar procedural posture

(a pretrial dismissal on speedy-trial grounds although the record in

MacGrady showed only that the case had been bound over to the grand

jury, not that the grand jury had indicted MacGrady). Addressing

whether the district or the circuit court had decided the motion to

dismiss, we stated:

"Judge Shanta Craig Owens, a Jefferson Circuit Court

Judge, signed the orders in this case as a 'District Judge.'

Further, MacGrady's motion and amended motion purported

to have been filed in the circuit court, yet the trial court's

digital stamp indicated that the motions had been filed in the

district court.

"Because the case had been bound over to the grand jury

before the motion to dismiss had been granted, the district

court no longer had jurisdiction of the case. See State v.

Brown, 259 So. 3d 655, 659 (Ala. 2018) ('The district court does

not retain authority over a case once the case has been bound

over to the grand jury.'). Accordingly, this Court remanded the

case on April 15, 2024, for Judge Owens to clarify whether she

was sitting as a circuit judge or acting as a district judge at

the time she granted MacGrady's motion to dismiss.

CR-2023-0629

"On April 16, 2024, Judge Owens issued an order stating

that she was sitting as a circuit judge when she granted

MacGrady's motion to dismiss. Presumably, the case still

carries a district court case number because the case was

dismissed before MacGrady was indicted."

410 So. 3d at 1160 n.1.

Consistent with our approach in MacGrady, we remanded by order

this case for Judge Pickett to clarify whether she was sitting as a circuit

judge or acting as a district judge when she granted Bonar's motion to

dismiss. Bonar v. State, [No. CR-2023-0629, June 30, 2025] ___ So. 3d ___

(Ala. Crim. App. 2025). Judge Anderson dissented from this Court's

judgment remanding Bonar's case.2 In Judge Anderson's view, this Court

should not consider "Judge Kandice Pickett's subjective thoughts about

her status in the proceedings below," and he asserted that this Court's

decision to remand the case "overlook[ed] our primary responsibility to

resolve issues involving subject-matter jurisdiction." ___ So. 3d at ___.

On remand, Judge Pickett found that in May 2017 Bonar's case was

bound over to the grand jury and that the State moved to recall the alias

2Judge Anderson was not a member of this Court when it decided

MacGrady.

CR-2023-0629

writ in February 2018 based on the grand jury's returning an indictment.

Judge Pickett also found that, in August 2023, she

"was acting as duty judge and held a hearing on the motion to

dismiss for want of speedy trial filed by [Bonar].

"The court at the time of the hearing was acting in [its]

capacity as a circuit court judge when it ruled on the speedy

trial motion …."

(Record on Return to Remand, C. 17.)

The record on return to remand thus confirms Bonar's assertion in

her brief on original submission that Judge Pickett was acting as the duty

judge in circuit court when she considered and ruled on Bonar's motion

to dismiss.3 (Bonar's brief, p. 5.) Despite Judge Anderson's

characterization of our remand order as seeking "subjective thoughts,"

the State has filed no brief on return to remand challenging Judge

Pickett's findings, and we see no reason to question the objectivity of

those findings.

As in MacGrady, the primary causes of confusion about which court

exercised jurisdiction over Bonar's motion are the references to the

3In its reply brief, the State recognized Bonar's point that Judge

Pickett was a circuit judge acting as a duty judge. (State's reply brief, pp.

3-4.)

CR-2023-0629

"District Court" on the digital filing stamps and the district-court case

numbers assigned to her cases. But we conclude, as we did in MacGrady,

that, despite the digital stamps and the district-court case numbers, the

circuit court granted the motion to dismiss the indictment.

In MacGrady this Court presumed that MacGrady's case still had

"a district court case number because the case was dismissed before

MacGrady was indicted." 410 So. 3d at 1160 n.1. We recognized, however,

that the speedy-trial motion and the order dismissing the case were filed

in the circuit court, despite references to the district court such as the

digital stamp. Our reasoning for that conclusion was twofold: (1) "The

district court does not retain authority over a case once the case has been

bound over to the grand jury," State v. Brown, 259 So. 3d 655, 659 (Ala.

2018), and (2) Judge Owens found that she had heard the motion to

dismiss in her capacity as a circuit judge. See MacGrady, 410 So. 3d at

1160 n.1.

Both reasons are present here. When Bonar filed her August 2023

motion to dismiss, which along with the State's response was styled "In

the Circuit Court of Jefferson County," her cases had already been bound

over to the grand jury (and the grand jury had returned an indictment).

CR-2023-0629

Thus, regardless of the case-number designations,4 the district court no

longer had jurisdiction. Brown, supra; MacGrady, supra. Cf. Horton v.

State, 369 So. 3d 1128, 1134 (Ala. Crim. App. 2022) ("We acknowledge

Horton's argument that, although his right to a speedy trial attached

when he was arrested, it would have been futile to assert that right in

the district court because, he says, the district court—as a court of limited

criminal jurisdiction, see § 12-12-32, Ala. Code 1975—had no authority

to dismiss the case on that basis. However, the district court lost its

limited jurisdiction over Horton's case once the case was bound over to

the grand jury on July 27, 2017. See State v. Brown, 259 So. 3d 655, 659

(Ala. 2018) ('The district court does not retain authority over a case once

the case has been bound over to the grand jury.'); and Rule 5.4(e), Ala. R.

Crim. P. ('Within fourteen (14) days after waiver or conclusion of the

preliminary hearing, all original papers and records shall be transmitted

4The record does not reveal why the Jefferson Circuit Clerk has not

assigned circuit-court case numbers to Bonar's cases. No one disputes,

however, that the cases were bound over to the grand jury and that the

grand jury returned an indictment. Thus, the circuit court would have

had the case files long before Bonar moved to dismiss the indictment. See

Rule 5.4, Ala. R. Crim. P. ("Within 14 days after waiver or conclusion of

the preliminary hearing, all original papers and records shall be

transmitted to the circuit court.").

CR-2023-0629

to the circuit court.').").5 And when she considered the motion and ruled

on it, Judge Pickett did so as a circuit judge, not as a district judge.

For these reasons, we hold that the State is due no relief on its

argument that the Jefferson District Court, rather than the Jefferson

Circuit Court, dismissed Bonar's indictment.

II. The Jefferson Circuit Court erred by finding that the delay violated

Bonar's right to a speedy trial.

We now consider the State's contention that Judge Pickett erred in

granting Bonar's motion to dismiss the indictment. The relevant facts

before us are undisputed. Thus, " '[t]he only question to be decided is a

question of law, and our review is therefore de novo.' Ex parte Heard, 999

5This Court has rejected the notion that a circuit court lacks

authority to act in a felony case once it has been bound over to the grand

jury:

"It is clear from his briefs to this Court that Horton

believes a circuit court has no authority to act in a felony case

until an indictment is returned. This belief is incorrect and, if

it were true, would result in a period of 'legal limbo' between

a preliminary hearing and an indictment in which no court

has the authority to act in a felony case. See § 12-11-30(2),

Ala. Code 1975."

Horton v. State, 369 So. 3d 1128, 1134 n.2 (Ala. Crim. App. 2022).

CR-2023-0629

So. 2d 978, 980 (Ala. 2003) (citing Ex parte Key, 890 So. 2d 1056, 1059

(Ala. 2003))." MacGrady, 410 So. 3d at 1160.

The Alabama Supreme Court has stated:

"An accused's right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution3 and by

Art. I, § 6, of the Alabama Constitution, 1901.4 … [A]n

evaluation of an accused's speedy-trial claim requires us to

balance the four factors the United States Supreme Court set

forth in Barker [v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 33 L.

Ed. 2d 101 (1972)]: '[l]ength of delay, the reason for the delay,

the defendant's assertion of [her] right, and prejudice to the

defendant.' 407 U.S. at 530, 92 S. Ct. 2182 (footnote omitted).

See also Ex parte Carrell, 565 So. 2d [104,] 105 [(Ala. 1990)].

'A single factor is not necessarily determinative, because this

is a "balancing test, in which the conduct of both the

prosecution and the defense are weighed." ' Ex parte Clopton,

656 So. 2d [1243,] 1245 [(Ala. 1995)] (quoting Barker, 407 U.S.

at 530, 92 S. Ct. 2182).

"_______________

"3'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy

the right to a speedy and public trial ....' U.S. Const. amend.

VI.

"4'[I]n all prosecutions by indictment, [the accused has a

right to] a speedy, public trial ....' Art. I, § 6, Ala. Const. 1901.

…"

Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d 259, 263 (Ala. 2005). We examine these

factors in turn.

CR-2023-0629

A. The length of the delay is presumptively prejudicial under Barker.

The first Barker factor—the length of the delay—is a threshold

inquiry to see "whether the length of the delay is ' "presumptively

prejudicial." ' " Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d at 263 (quoting Doggett v.

United States, 505 U.S. 647, 652 (1992), quoting in turn Barker v. Wingo,

407 U.S. 514, 530-31 (1972)). If the length of the delay is presumptively

prejudicial, we examine the remaining three Barker factors. Id. at 264.

"In Alabama, '[t]he length of delay is measured from the date of the

indictment or the date of the issuance of an arrest warrant—whichever

is earlier—to the date of the trial.' " Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d at 264

(quoting Roberson v. State, 864 So. 2d 379, 394 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002)).

The delay of more than 8 years and 4 months—from April 3, 2015, the

date of Bonar's arrest, until August 18, 2023, when the circuit court

granted Bonar's motion to dismiss—is presumptively prejudicial. We

thus examine the remaining Barker factors.6 Ex parte Walker, 928 So.

2d at 264-65 (finding a 50-month delay presumptively prejudicial).

6The State argues that Bonar "essentially waived her right to a

speedy trial" by, the State says, "absenting herself from the jurisdiction."

(State's brief, p. 15.) In support of this argument, the State describes

Bonar as a "fugitive" and cites her waiting more than six years to assert

CR-2023-0629

B. Five years of delay caused by the State's negligence weighs against

the State but not heavily so.

"The State has the burden of justifying the delay. See

Barker, 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S. Ct. 2182; Steeley v. City of

Gadsden, 533 So. 2d 671, 680 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988). Barker

recognizes three categories of reasons for delay: (1) deliberate

delay, (2) negligent delay, and (3) justified delay. 407 U.S. at

531, 92 S. Ct. 2182. Courts assign different weight to different

reasons for delay. Deliberate delay is 'weighted heavily'

against the State. 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S. Ct. 2182. Deliberate

delay includes an 'attempt to delay the trial in order to

hamper the defense' or ' "to gain some tactical advantage over

(defendants) or to harass them." ' 407 U.S. at 531 & n.32, 92

S. Ct. 2182 (quoting United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307,

325, 92 S. Ct. 455, 30 L. Ed. 2d 468 (1971)). Negligent delay is

weighted less heavily against the State than is deliberate

delay. Barker, 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S. Ct. 2182; Ex parte

Carrell, 565 So. 2d [104,] 108 [(Ala. 1990)]. Justified delay—

which includes such occurrences as missing witnesses or

delay for which the defendant is primarily responsible—is not

weighted against the State. Barker, 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S. Ct.

her right to a speedy trial. (State's brief, p. 19.) The State argues that we

need not examine the remaining Barker factors. We disagree.

First, the State's argument on this point conflates the Barker

analysis, seeking to use the second and third Barker factors (the reason

for the delay and the assertion of the right) to end the inquiry at the first

Barker factor. Cf. State v. Williams, [Ms. CR-2024-0124, Dec. 20, 2024]

___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2024) (Minor, J., concurring part and

concurring in the result). Second, although the record shows that Bonar

failed to appear for a hearing, there is no affirmative finding that Bonar

is a "fugitive." Cf. Mozingo v. State, 562 So. 2d 300, 304 (Ala. Crim. App.

1990) ("Our courts, too, have defined 'fugitive from justice.' All that is

required is that the appellant was in the demanding State when the

crime was committed, that he is now found in Alabama, and that he

refuses to return to the demanding state." (emphasis added)).

CR-2023-0629

2182; Zumbado v. State, 615 So. 2d 1223, 1234 (Ala. Crim.

App. 1993) (' "Delays occasioned by the defendant or on his

behalf are excluded from the length of delay and are heavily

counted against the defendant in applying the balancing test

of Barker." ') (quoting McCallum v. State, 407 So. 2d 865, 868

(Ala. Crim. App. 1981))."

Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d at 265.

In its order, the circuit court found that the State's negligence

caused the delay. (C. 19.) The circuit court found that the December 2021

denial of Bonar's motion to dismiss "served as notice to the State of the

need to have [Bonar] served with the grand jury writ." (C. 19.) The circuit

court also noted: "[T]he State provided no evidence of any attempt to

serve [Bonar] with the grand jury writ or of any efforts by [Bonar] to avoid

being served with the grand jury writ." (C. 19.)

Bonar's counsel stated at the August 2023 hearing that Bonar was

contesting only the delay after the issuance of the indictment in February

2018. (R. 17 ("I'm not arguing about the delay from 2015. Since the

warrant was recalled, since the grand jury writ has been issued in 2018,

the delay serving her with those writs is excessive.").) Subtracting the

time from Bonar's arrest in April 2015 until her indictment in February

2018 leaves a delay of roughly five and a half years. The record supports

the circuit court's finding that this delay was due at least in part to the

CR-2023-0629

State's negligence, although, as the State mentioned in its response to

the motion and at the hearing, some of the delay during this time was

based on the COVID-19 pandemic. (C. 86; R. 10.) In MacGrady, we stated:

"The State … argu[ed] below that the delay was justified

because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, after recognizing

that jury trials in Alabama were suspended by order of the

Alabama Supreme Court from March 13, 2020, to September

14, 2020, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, this Court held

in Quinnie v. State, 382 So. 3d 1275, 1280-81 (Ala. Crim. App.

2022), that the six months that had passed during the

suspension of jury trials could not be held against the State.

According to the State, grand juries in the Tenth Judicial

Circuit were suspended even longer, until November 2020.

"Yet, MacGrady's case was initiated with his arrest on

February 21, 2022, some 15 months after grand juries had

resumed in the Tenth Judicial Circuit. In truth, the State's

explanation for the delay was a pre-existing backlog of cases

that had been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The

State asserted to the circuit court that, in attempting to

whittle down the backlog of pending cases, it had prioritized

holding trials for defendants who were incarcerated while

awaiting trial and defendants who were charged with violent

crimes—neither of which applied to MacGrady.

"In Quinnie, this Court held that only the six months

that had passed during the suspension constituted justifiable

delay. Quinnie, 382 So. 3d at 1281. The remainder of the

delay, both before and after the suspension of jury trials, was

held to be negligent delay on the part of the State. Id. Further,

this Court commonly views delays resulting from a congested

court system as negligent 'since the ultimate responsibility for

such circumstances must rest with the government rather

than with the defendant.' Barker, 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S. Ct.

2182. This is especially true in the instant case because it

CR-2023-0629

involves a delay in presenting the case to the grand jury, an

act over which the State has greater control relative to the

setting of a case for trial. Nevertheless, this Court is

sympathetic to the burdens placed on an already strained

criminal-justice system by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although

the 20-month delay must weigh against the State, given the

nature of the delay, this Court holds that it should not weigh

heavily. See Draper v. State, 886 So. 2d 105, 115 (Ala. Crim.

App. 2002) ('It appears that none of the 77-month delay was

attributable to the prosecutor; rather, the delay was the result

of a large backlog of cases in Jefferson County and, therefore,

should not weigh heavily against the State.')."

410 So. 3d at 1162 (footnotes omitted).

Here, the grand jury returned an indictment before the delays

caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. But the State also asserted that,

after jury trials resumed, it focused on violent cases first in trying to

reduce the backlog of cases resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. (C.

86.) Subtracting roughly six months attributable to the COVID-19

pandemic leaves the delay attributable to the State's negligence at five

years. As in MacGrady, we hold that the five-year delay weighs against

the State but not heavily so. Cf. Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d at 265

("Thus, the second Barker factor weighs against the State, but the precise

weight of the State's negligence and its effect on the prejudice to Walker

is addressed in our analysis of the fourth Barker factor.").

CR-2023-0629

C. Bonar waited more than six years after her arrest and four years

after her case was bound over to the ground jury to request a speedy

trial.

"An accused does not waive the right to a speedy trial

simply by failing to assert it. Barker, 407 U.S. at 528, 92 S.

Ct. 2182. Even so, courts applying the Barker factors are to

consider in the weighing process whether and when the

accused asserts the right to a speedy trial, 407 U.S. at 528-29,

92 S. Ct. 2182, and not every assertion of the right to a speedy

trial is weighted equally. Compare Kelley v. State, 568 So. 2d

405, 410 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990) ('Repeated requests for a

speedy trial weigh heavily in favor of an accused.'), with

Clancy v. State, 886 So. 2d 166, 172 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003)

(weighting third factor against an accused who asserted his

right to a speedy trial two weeks before trial, and stating:

' "The fact that the appellant did not assert his right to a

speedy trial sooner 'tends to suggest that he either acquiesced

in the delays or suffered only minimal prejudice prior to that

date.' " ') (quoting Benefield v. State, 726 So. 2d 286, 291 (Ala.

Crim. App. 1997), additional citations omitted), and Brown v.

State, 392 So. 2d 1248, 1254 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980) (no

speedy-trial violation where defendant asserted his right to a

speedy trial three days before trial)."

Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d at 265-66.

The circuit court found that Bonar "is unable to assert [her] request

for a speedy trial because a circuit case number and judge assignment

cannot be made unless and until [Bonar] is served with the grand jury

writ." (C. 19.) The record refutes the circuit court's finding that Bonar

could not assert her right to a speedy trial. Counsel for Bonar asserted

the right twice—in December 2021 and in August 2023. As shown by this

CR-2023-0629

exchange at the hearing in August 2023, counsel made the speedy-trial

demand without contacting Bonar:

"THE COURT: … Was any attempt made to contact Ms.

Bonar about this motion? Not the court setting, because I

know I just set it recently, but just about the motion itself.

"[COUNSEL FOR BONAR]: … Judge, no. We have not had

any contact with Ms. Bonar. I think it's Bonar, I believe. But

we haven't had any contact.[7]

"THE COURT: And I think I said her last name—

"[COUNSEL FOR BONAR]: Yeah. But, no, we have not had

contact."

(R. 20.)

The record shows that Bonar (or Bonar's counsel) waited more than

six years after Bonar's arrest and more than four years after her case was

bound over to the grand jury to demand a speedy trial in December 2021.

Bonar (or her counsel) then waited until August 2023 to again demand a

speedy trial. Although the circuit court did not expressly assign weight

to this factor, we find that this factor weighs only slightly in Bonar's favor

because (1) Bonar, by her arrest in April 2015, knew about the charges

against her and (2) the State notified Bonar's counsel in February 2018

7The record shows an Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, address for

Bonar. (C. 2.)

CR-2023-0629

that an indictment had been returned.8 (C. 73.) See Ex parte Walker, 928

So. 2d at 266 ("[T]his factor weighs in Walker's favor, but not as heavily

as it would if the record affirmatively showed that she did not know of

the charges ….").

D. Bonar suffered no actual prejudice and is due no presumption of

prejudice.

"Because 'pretrial delay is often both inevitable and

wholly justifiable,' Doggett [v. United States], 505 U.S. [647,]

656, 112 S. Ct. 2686 [(1992)], the fourth Barker factor

examines whether and to what extent the delay has

prejudiced the defendant. Barker, 407 U.S. at 532, 92 S. Ct.

2182. The United States Supreme Court has recognized three

types of harm that may result from depriving a defendant of

the right to a speedy trial: ' "oppressive pretrial

incarceration," "anxiety and concern of the accused," and "the

possibility that the [accused's] defense will be impaired" by

dimming memories and loss of exculpatory evidence.' Doggett,

505 U.S. at 654, 112 S. Ct. 2686 (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at

532, 92 S. Ct. 2182, and citing Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374,

377-79, 89 S. Ct. 575, 21 L. Ed. 2d 607 (1969); United States

v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 120, 86 S. Ct. 773, 15 L. Ed. 2d 627

(1966)). 'Of these forms of prejudice, "the most serious is the

last, because the inability of a defendant adequately to

prepare his case skews the fairness of the entire system." ' 505

U.S. at 654, 112 S. Ct. 2686 (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 532,

92 S. Ct. 2182)."

8Despite the assertions in Bonar's motions to dismiss that no

indictment had been returned, the State, in its February 2018 motion to

recall the alias writ, asserted that the grand jury had returned an

indictment. The State's certificate of service states that it served that

motion on Bonar's counsel on February 12, 2018. (C. 73.) Bonar's counsel

has not disputed the truthfulness of that certificate of service.

CR-2023-0629

Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d at 266-67.

The circuit court found that Bonar had been prejudiced by the

delay, but, in support of that finding, the circuit court stated that Bonar

had been "unable to assert [her] request for a speedy trial because a

circuit court case number and judge assignment cannot be made unless

and until [Bonar] is served with the grand jury writ."9 (C. 19.) Yet, as

noted above, Bonar has asserted her right to a speedy trial.

The State contends that Bonar has shown no prejudice from the

delay. (State's brief, p. 23.) Although Bonar offered no evidence at the

speedy-trial hearing, she asserts on appeal that the delay "did prejudice"

her, and she cites her serving "175 days in the Jefferson County Jail from

April 3, 2015, to September 24, 2015." (Bonar's brief, pp. 10-11.)

While oppressive pretrial incarceration is a type of harm mentioned

in Barker, Bonar does not allege that her 175 days of incarceration were

oppressive.10 And Bonar admitted at the speedy-trial hearing that she

9The circuit court also found that "these are not complex offenses

which is also a factor that weighs against the State." (C. 19.)

10The record shows that Bonar had other offenses to which she had

pleaded guilty. (R. 6.)

CR-2023-0629

was not challenging the delay that included the time in which she was

incarcerated. Thus, Bonar has not alleged or shown that she suffered

actual prejudice.

To the point that Bonar argues that prejudice may be presumed in

her case, she is due no relief. Like MacGrady, Bonar cites Hayes v. State,

487 So. 2d 987, 995 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986), for the proposition that she

need not show actual prejudice, and she asserts that " '[the] prosecution

should not be permitted to engage in inexcusable misconduct on the hope

that the defendant will not be able to make out a case of prejudice.'

[Hayes, 487 So. 2d] at 995-996." (Bonar's brief, p. 10.) See MacGrady, 410

So. 3d at 1163.

"This Court's holding in Hayes, however, simply does

not apply to the facts of this case. Hayes, as the quotation

suggests, dealt with a delay that was found to be 'deliberate

and inexcusable, thus warranting heavy weight against the

State.' Hayes, 487 So. 2d at 992-93. As this Court has already

held, and as MacGrady conceded at the hearing below, the

delay here was, at most, negligent on the part of the State.

The holding of the Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte

Walker addresses whether prejudice may be presumed due to

negligent delay on the part of the State:

" ' "[T]o warrant granting relief, negligence

unaccompanied by particularized trial prejudice

must have lasted longer than negligence

demonstrably causing such prejudice." Doggett v.

United States, 505 U.S. [647,] 657 [(1992)], 112 S.

CR-2023-0629

Ct. 2686 [120 L. Ed. 2d 520]. The Court concluded

that "the Government's egregious persistence in

failing [for 8 1/2 years] to prosecute Doggett [was]

clearly sufficient" to entitle the accused to relief.

505 U.S. at 657, 112 S. Ct. 2686. The Doggett

Court did not, however, establish a bright-line rule

for the length of delay caused by governmental

negligence that will warrant a finding of presumed

prejudice under the fourth Barker factor. Even so,

when an accused alleges solely that [his] trial was

delayed because of governmental negligence—as is

the case here—lower federal courts applying

Doggett generally do not presume prejudice under

the fourth Barker factor unless the postindictment

delay is five years or more. [United States v.]

Serna-Villarreal, 352 F.3d [225,] 232 [(5th Cir.

2003)] (refusing to presume prejudice under the

fourth Barker factor in a case in which

prosecutorial negligence delayed the accused's

trial for three years and nine months and citing

Doggett, 505 U.S. at 658, 112 S. Ct. 2686

(presuming prejudice after six-year delay caused

by the government's negligence); United States v.

Bergfeld, 280 F.3d 486, 489-91 (5th Cir. 2002)

(presuming prejudice after a five-year-and-threemonth delay caused by the government's

negligence, but noting that "[h]ad the delay been

considerably shorter, [the accused] might well

have been properly required to demonstrate

prejudice"); United States v. Cardona, 302 F.3d

494, 498-99 (5th Cir. 2002) (presuming prejudice

where governmental negligence resulted in a delay

of more than five years); United States v. Brown,

169 F.3d 344, 349-51 (6th Cir. 1999) (presuming

prejudice where governmental negligence resulted

in five and one-half-year delay); United States v.

Shell, 974 F.2d 1035, 1036 (9th Cir. 1992)

(presuming prejudice where governmental

CR-2023-0629

negligence resulted in a six-year delay)). Like the

Doggett Court, we do not adopt a bright-line rule

for the length of delay that will result in a finding

of presumed prejudice. But we note that the fouryear-and-two-month delay in Walker's case is well

within the five-year time period generally

established by federal cases for presuming

prejudice. Further, "[t]here is no indication from

this record that either the [State]'s negligence or

the resulting length of the delay here adversely

affected the evidence so as to undermine the

fairness of a trial." Serna-Villarreal, 352 F.3d at

233.'

"Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d at 269-70."

MacGrady, 410 So. 3d at 1163-64. The Court in Ex parte Walker cited an

"inverse-variance" rule from Doggett, under which

"the reviewing court's 'toleration of [governmental] negligence

varies inversely with its protractedness ... and its consequent

threat to the fairness of the accused's trial.' Doggett, 505 U.S.

at 657, 112 S. Ct. 2686. In other words, the longer the delay

resulting from the state's negligence, the greater the

likelihood that the accused's speedy-trial right has been

violated, even without the accused affirmatively

demonstrating actual prejudice."

Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d at 268.

In MacGrady, this Court held that the 20-month delay there was

"well short of any standard that would trigger presumed prejudice," and

this Court noted that " '[t]here is no indication from this record that either

the [State]'s negligence or the resulting length of the delay here adversely

CR-2023-0629

affected the evidence so as to undermine the fairness of a trial.' [United

States v.] Serna-Villarreal, 352 F.3d [225,] 233 [(5th Cir. 2003)]."

MacGrady, 410 So. 3d at 1164 (quoting Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d at

270). This Court thus held that it would not presume that MacGrady had

suffered prejudice.

The five-year delay in Bonar's case is the minimum threshold

recognized in Ex parte Walker at which courts have presumed prejudice.

In Ex parte Walker, the Alabama Supreme Court refused to presume

prejudice based solely on a 50-month delay caused by the State's "official

negligence." The Court distinguished Doggett for two reasons:

"(1) the length of the delay, and (2) proof of the accused's

knowledge of the indictment. As noted, approximately three

years passed from Walker's indictment until her arrest, and

four years and two months passed from her indictment until

she entered her guilty plea. Both of these delays are

substantially less time than the 8 1/2-year delay between the

indictment and the arrest in Doggett. 505 U.S. at 657-58, 112

S. Ct. 2686. Accordingly, the longer delay in Doggett created

a much greater presumption than is present here that the

negligent delay prejudiced the accused's ability to present a

defense. 505 U.S. at 652, 657-58, 112 S. Ct. 2686. In addition,

the record in Doggett revealed that the accused had no

knowledge of the indictment against him during the 8 1/2

years from his indictment until his arrest. 505 U.S. at 653-54,

112 S. Ct. 2686. Thus, the Court in Doggett concluded that the

accused was 'not to be taxed for invoking his speedy trial right

only after his arrest.' 505 U.S. at 654, 112 S. Ct. 2686. But as

we concluded in our discussion of the third factor, Walker has

CR-2023-0629

not established that she did not know of the charges against

her during the time between the issuance of the indictment in

her case and her arrest. … Thus, her situation is

distinguishable from that of the accused in Doggett."

Ex parte Walker, 928 So. 2d at 269.

Both grounds are present here: (1) The delay in Bonar's case is

much shorter than the delay in Doggett and (2) Bonar knew about her

arrest in April 2015. And, based on the State's February 2018 motion to

recall the alias writ, which was served on Bonar's counsel and which

stated that the grand jury had returned an indictment, Bonar through

counsel also knew about the indictment. Thus, we hold that the

circumstances do not justify presuming that the delay prejudiced Bonar.

With no actual or presumed prejudice, the circuit court erred in

finding that the delay prejudiced Bonar and violated her right to a speedy

trial. See MacGrady, 410 So. 3d at 1165-66. " 'Consequently, "balancing

the four Barker factors, we cannot say that the delay in this case

experienced by [Bonar] prejudiced [her] to the degree that would warrant

the dismissal" of the ... charge[s] against [her] at this time.' " MacGrady,

410 So. 3d at 1166 (quoting State v. Crandle, 368 So. 3d 934, 946 (Ala.

Crim. App. 2021), quoting in turn State v. Jones, 35 So. 3d 644, 659 (Ala.

Crim. App. 2009)).

CR-2023-0629

Conclusion

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and this cause is

remanded to that court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Windom, P.J., and Cole, J., concur. Kellum, J., concurs in the result.

Anderson, J., concurs in the result, with opinion.

CR-2023-0629

ANDERSON, Judge, concurring in the result.

A person seeking relief from a court must both properly invoke that

court's jurisdiction and submit themselves to that court's jurisdiction.

Jeri Bonar had two avenues for doing that: 1) she could have commenced

an action seeking an extraordinary writ, resulting in the creation of a

circuit-court docket number, or 2) she could have appeared in the

Jefferson Circuit Court and accepted service of the indictment that had

been returned against her and proceeded under a circuit-court docket

number. Bonar, however, did neither. Instead, she remained outside the

court's jurisdiction. Bonar's location, wishes, intentions, and status were

unknown to all -- including the attorneys who filed a motion to dismiss

on her behalf in Jefferson District Court. By addressing the merits of

Bonar's motion to dismiss that was filed electronically in the Jefferson

District Court, the main opinion avoids this important jurisdictional

issue and encourages, rather than dissuades, parties who refuse to

submit themselves to the jurisdiction of our courts.

While I agree that the result reached by the main opinion is correct,

I do not believe that this Court could properly reach the merits of Bonar's

motion to dismiss. My concerns about the jurisdictional defects in this

CR-2023-0629

appeal were set forth in my dissent from this Court's earlier order

remanding this appeal to the district court with instructions. See State

v. Bonar, [No. CR-2023-0629, June 30, 2025] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala.

Crim. App. 2025) (Anderson, J., dissenting). Even now, with the benefit

of Judge Pickett's finding that she was "acting as duty judge" and in her

"capacity as a circuit court judge" when she granted Bonar's motion to

dismiss, two jurisdictional concerns remain. First, if Bonar's lawyers filed

a motion to dismiss in the Jefferson District Court, how did the Jefferson

Circuit Court obtain subject-matter jurisdiction over that motion?

Second, how did the circuit court acquire personal jurisdiction over

Bonar?

As to the first question, on return to remand, the main opinion

asserts that the State is "confused" about "which court granted Bonar's

motion to dismiss." ___ So. 3d at ___. If so, it is not without good cause.

Indeed, any confusion on the State's part might be explained by the fact

that the style of this appeal, as noted in this Court's previous order11

reads "Appeal from Jefferson District Court." Perhaps the State's

11See Bonar, ___ So. 3d ___ (reported as an "Appeal from Jefferson

District Court, Nos. DC-15-3187 and DC-15-3188, Kandice E. Pickett,

Judge").

CR-2023-0629

confusion arises from Judge Pickett's entry of a dismissal order in two

district-court cases using an order styled "In the District Court of

Jefferson County, Alabama." (C. 18.) Or, more to the point, maybe the

confusion arises because Bonar has never invoked the jurisdiction of the

Jefferson Circuit Court or paid a filing fee to commence an action in that

court.

As for the main opinion's focus on whether the State has taken

inconsistent positions in the lower court and in this Court, we are

required to address obvious jurisdictional defects whenever they appear.

See Ex parte Smith, 438 So. 2d 766, 768 (Ala. 1983) (citing City of

Huntsville v. Miller, 271 Ala. 687, 127 So. 2d 606 (1958); Payne v.

Department of Indus. Rels., 423 So. 2d 231 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982); Nigg v.

Smith, 415 So. 2d 1082 (Ala. 1982); and Rule 60(b)(4), Ala. R. Civ. P.))

("Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties

and it is the duty of an appellate court to consider lack of subject matter

jurisdiction ex mero motu" because, if "a court is without subject matter

jurisdiction, any judgment rendered therein is void."). In that regard, the

State cannot be treated differently than the countless other appellants

who have raised jurisdictional claims in this Court that were not properly

CR-2023-0629

framed or preserved in the trial court. See, e.g., Z.J.H. v. State, [Ms. CR2023-0302, June 27, 2025] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2025)

(noting that issue regarding unauthorized sentence had "not been raised

on appeal" but that, "[b]ecause '[m]atters concerning unauthorized

sentences are jurisdictional,' … this Court may take notice of an illegal

sentence at any time"); Wesson v. State, 370 So. 3d 841, 864 (Ala. Crim.

App. 2020) ("Although Wesson raises this claim for the first time on

application for rehearing, because his claim raises a jurisdictional issue,

it can be raised at any time.").

I am puzzled at the main opinion's ready acceptance that Judge

Pickett's "acting as duty judge" meant that "at the time of the hearing"

she "was acting … as a circuit court judge" as disposing of the question of

jurisdiction. ___ So. 3d at ___. According to the main opinion, this

"confirms Bonar's assertion in her brief on original submission that

Judge Pickett was acting as the duty judge in circuit court when she

considered and ruled on Bonar's motion to dismiss." ___ So. 3d at ___. I

do not question Judge Pickett's sincere belief that she was acting in that

capacity, though I do find it difficult to reconcile her order on remand

with her concession during the proceedings below that she knew "the case

CR-2023-0629

can't get started in circuit court until [Bonar is] served with the writ" and

that "I can't even serve [Bonar] with a court date because she hasn't been

served." (R. 15, 20.)

Nonetheless, neither the Code of Alabama nor the Constitution of

Alabama of 2022 reference an "Office" of duty judge, whereas they do

reference the offices and duties of circuit and district judges. Instead,

Alabama law recognizes that a circuit judge may be appointed an

additional duty to serve as a district judge, see § 12-17-67, Ala. Code

1975, but a circuit judge acting in the district court is bound by the

jurisdictional limitations of that subordinate court. See generally State

ex rel. Locke v. Sweeney, 349 So. 2d 1147, 1148 (Ala. 1977) ("the

jurisdiction of neither the Circuit nor the District Court of Mobile County

is affected by the temporary assignment of a judge from one to the other.

The jurisdiction of both courts remains the same, as does the venue of

causes in either." (emphasis added)). Judge Pickett may have been a

"duty" judge, but the duties she was performing pertained to a motion to

dismiss filed in the Jefferson District Court under case numbers DC-15-3187 and DC-15-3188.

CR-2023-0629

As noted in my earlier dissent, under § 12-17-26, Ala. Code 1975,

circuit judges have the authority to "exercise such other powers as are or

may be granted them by law." If Judge Pickett was acting as a circuit

judge, the main opinion should be able to point to somewhere in the

record on appeal where Bonar properly invoked the jurisdiction of the

circuit court by means of a petition for the writ of habeas corpus, a

petition for the writ of mandamus, or some other appropriate mechanism,

including the payment of a filing fee. A motion to dismiss, however,

presupposes the existence of a pending action. It is telling that there is

nothing in the record on appeal to support a finding that a legal cause of

action was pending before the circuit court to allow Judge Pickett to sit

as a circuit judge. See Sweeney, supra.

For example, at the time Bonar's counsel filed the motion to dismiss

in the district court, they were unaware that an indictment had been

returned. While the main opinion notes that it was disclosed that an

indictment had been returned before the hearing on Bonar's speedy-trial

claim, Bonar's defense counsel were ignorant of that fact at the time they

filed the motion to dismiss and when they appeared before Judge Pickett.

As Bonar's counsel argued, "the cases were waived to the grand jury in

CR-2023-0629

2017" and "there has been no indictment returned." (C. 5.) It cannot be

seriously maintained, therefore, that Bonar's counsel were seeking to

commence an action in the circuit court in response to the return of an

indictment.

If no such civil or criminal action exists, then the main opinion

should be able to point to some statute or rule authorizing the circuit

court to take the actions it took. See § 12-17-26, Ala. Code 1975. While

courts do possess certain inherent powers, the authority to transform a

district-court case into a circuit-court case is not among them. See Ex

parte Smith, 438 So. 2d at 768 (citing In re Ingram, 356 So. 2d 618 (Ala.

1978)) ("We are in agreement with the Court of Civil Appeals to the

extent that a circuit court is without authority to transfer a cause from

an inferior court under the auspices of its general supervisory powers.").

Bonar's counsel electronically filed a motion to dismiss in the district

court and did nothing to invoke the jurisdiction of the circuit court. The

circuit court, moreover, was without authority to transfer Bonar's

district-court action to the circuit court under the auspices of its general

supervisory powers.

CR-2023-0629

The closest the main opinion comes to explaining the circuit court's

subject-matter jurisdiction is its citing the return of indictments against

Bonar to justify the conclusion that it was the Jefferson Circuit Court

that "dismissed Bonar's indictment." The main opinion suggests -- but

does not say – that, because the district court lost jurisdiction over the

cases when Bonar was bound over to the grand jury for indictment,

jurisdiction over Bonar's cases must have lied with the circuit court. The

main opinion, in a footnote, recognizes that circuit court has authority to

act in a felony prosecution once it has been bound over to the grand jury

or before the service of the indictment on a defendant, citing, in turn, a

footnote in Horton v. State, 369 So. 3d 1128, 1134 n.2 (Ala. Crim. App.

2022). ___ So. 3d at ___ n. 5. While it is true that circuit courts have

jurisdiction and some limited powers to act in regard to grand-jury

proceedings and felony prosecutions before service of an indictment on

the accused, a circuit court's jurisdiction still must be properly invoked.

As noted in Ex parte Smith, supra, the circuit court lacked authority to

transfer the motion to dismiss Bonar's counsel filed in the district court

to form a "new" action in the circuit court under the auspices of its general

supervisory powers.

CR-2023-0629

More importantly, in Horton the Court did not discuss how Horton

could have invoked his right to a speedy trial, but the record in that case

shows that he was on pretrial release during the relevant period. Horton,

369 So. 3d at 1130; cf. State v. MacGrady, 410 So. 3d 1158, 1160 (Ala.

Crim. App. May 3, 2024) (noting that "MacGrady was released on bond"

but remained in the area). Thus, he was both subject to the court's

jurisdiction and to limitations on his liberty, the conditions of his bond,

and he could have asserted his speedy-trial rights in a petition for the

writ of habeas corpus. That is not so in Bonar's case.

The main opinion further suggests that the absence of a circuitcourt case number -- whether a circuit-court criminal docket number or

circuit-court civil docket number -- is merely a ministerial misstep,

noting that "[t]he record does not reveal why the Jefferson Circuit Clerk

has not assigned circuit-court case numbers to Bonar's cases." ___ So. 3d

at ___ n.4. But the reason for the absence of a circuit-court case number

is staring this Court in the face -- even though an indictment was

returned and an arrest warrant issued, Bonar has eluded arrest. In such

cases -- when an indictment has been returned but not yet served -- a

CR-2023-0629

circuit court's powers over the indictment are limited.12 One such power

directly relevant to the situation at hand is found in "Section 15-8-71[,

Ala. Code 1975, which] expressly allows for withdrawing and filing an

indictment when an accused cannot be located for prosecution." Skinner

v. State, 843 So. 2d 820, 823 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). However, it is the

district attorney who has the power to "withdraw and file" the

indictment, and the circuit court's only power is to give or deny leave to

do so. § 15-8-71, Ala. Code 1975.

Still, even assuming that subject-matter jurisdiction lies with the

circuit court, the important question of personal jurisdiction remains. A

circuit court must acquire both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction

in an action. Ex parte Seymour, 946 So. 2d 536, 537 n.3 (Ala. 2006) (citing

Wolf v. McGaugh, 175 Ala. 299, 303, 57 So. 754, 755 (Ala. 1911)). In other

words, "[a] court has jurisdiction if it has jurisdiction of the subject

matter and of the parties." Goulden v. State, 292 Ala. 704, 705, 299 So.

2d 325, 326 (1974). One way that the circuit court could have obtained

personal jurisdiction over Bonar is if she had filed a petition for an

12Indeed, after the indictment is returned but before it is served,

only the presiding judge of the circuit is even allowed to see it. § 15-8-70,

Ala. Code 1975.

CR-2023-0629

extraordinary writ, paid the requisite filing fee, and submitted herself to

that court's jurisdiction.13 It is clear that personal jurisdiction over the

parties would have existed if Bonar had properly sought the circuit

court's intervention through a petition for an extraordinary writ and

served the State. See, e.g., Woodruff v. City of Tuscaloosa, 101 So. 3d 749,

752 (Ala. 2012) (noting that personal jurisdiction existed when Woodruff

initiated the lawsuit and that there is no question that he properly served

the City). But no petition was filed, nor was any filing fee paid.14 Instead,

Bonar's attorneys decided -- without attempting to contact their missing

13Of course, this would have required Bonar to make her

whereabouts known to the law-enforcement officials seeking to serve her

with the arrest warrant and indictment.

14Historically, neither the Alabama Supreme Court nor this Court

have shied away from ensuring that the jurisdiction of a trial court is

properly invoked through the payment of necessary docket fees as part of

its duties in considering an appeal. See, e.g., Ex parte Beavers, 779 So.

2d 1223, 1225 (Ala. 2000) ("Furthermore, the circuit court erred in ruling

on the merits of Beaver's Rule 32[, Ala. R. Crim. P.,] petition after

denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the circuit

court denied his request to proceed in forma pauperis, it lacked

jurisdiction to rule on the merits of his petition."); Ex parte Thomas, 723

So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Ala. 1998) ("Moreover, the circuit court erred in ruling

on the merits of Thomas's petition for medical treatment after denying

his request to proceed in forma pauperis. When the circuit court denied

his request to proceed in forma pauperis, it lacked jurisdiction to rule on

the merits of his petition."). The main opinion offers no reason for

departing from this practice.

CR-2023-0629

client -- to seek dismissal of the State's prosecution through the electronic

filing of a motion to dismiss in the Jefferson District Court. (C. 5, 20.)

Of course, Bonar had much simpler ways of invoking the circuit

court's jurisdiction -- she could have simply abided by the conditions of

pretrial release originally imposed on her by the district court or

surrendered herself to law enforcement. State v. Bennett, 727 So. 2d 863,

865 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997) (holding that circuit court "acquired in

personam jurisdiction over Bennett by Bennett's voluntary appearance

at both proceedings, where he submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the

court without objection"). Bonar, however, did not do so. Indeed, we have

no indication in the record that she was even aware that her speedy-trial

rights were being asserted by her counsel.

The particular facts of Bonar's case -- which include a withdrawn

bond, an unserved indictment, and a defendant in the wind -- cause me

serious concern over whether Judge Pickett had the requisite jurisdiction

to rule on the merits of Bonar's motion. Moreover, the Court raises

additional troublesome practical questions by reaching the merits of her

speedy-trial claim.

CR-2023-0629

Challenges to a felony prosecution on speedy-trial grounds must be

made by means of a pretrial motion filed in accordance with Rule 15.2,

Ala. R. Crim. P. But if a circuit court can reach the merits of a speedytrial motion in the situation presented by this record on appeal, could it

rule on other pretrial motions that are beyond the power of the district

court? For example, after a case is bound over to the grand jury, a district

court cannot grant a motion for pretrial discovery. State v. Brown, 259

So. 3d 655, 660 (Ala. 2018). Could a criminal defendant who was "on the

lam" in another state file a motion for discovery to gauge the strength of

the State's case against her before deciding whether to surrender to

police? The logic of the main opinion would suggest that the answer to

that question is "yes." At bottom, I am troubled by the notion that a

criminal defendant who has effectively fled prosecution by avoiding

arrest could both have her cake and eat it too by avoiding the circuit

court's jurisdiction while taking advantage of it.

Because I cannot ignore these jurisdictional questions that remain

unanswered by the main opinion, I can only agree with the result it

reaches -- that Bonar was not entitled to any relief on her motion to

dismiss on speedy-trial grounds. Should either party to this appeal

CR-2023-0629

successfully seek further review of this Court's decision in the Alabama

Supreme Court, I respectfully ask that Court to address the issue of

subject-matter jurisdiction presented by these facts for our benefit, as

well as for the benefit of the circuit and district courts.

Alabama's courts and judges exercise considerable power -- but that

power is not limitless. What power the judicial branch does wield must

be authorized and delegated to us by rule, statute, or constitutional

provision. Because I can find no such authority allowing a circuit court to

grant relief to someone in Bonar's position -- an indicted defendant

seeking dismissal of an indictment while refusing to submit to the court's

jurisdiction -- I cannot agree that the dismissal of Bonar's indictment was

a proper use of judicial power. Consequently, I concur only in the result.

State of Alabama v. Jeri Bonar

Authorities cited

Opinion · public domain