Rel: June 5, 2020

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) 2290649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2019-2020
____________________
1180802
____________________
Ex parte Calvin Barnes
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(In re: State of Alabama
v.
Calvin Cornelius Barnes)
(Mobile Circuit Court, CC-17-2125)

PER CURIAM.
Calvin Barnes petitions this Court for a writ of habeas
corpus

directing

the

Mobile

Circuit

Court

("the

circuit

 1180802
court"), Judge Jim Patterson presiding, to vacate its orders
revoking his bail and denying his motion to reinstate his
bail. Because the circuit court acted beyond its authority, we
grant the petition and issue the writ.
Facts and Procedural History
Barnes was arrested in September 2016 and was charged
with murder under § 13A-6-2(a)(1), Ala. Code 1975. The Mobile
District Court set Barnes's bail at $150,000 with a $10,000
cash component. The district court held a preliminary hearing
in October 2016, and Barnes's case was bound over to the grand
jury. In May 2017, the grand jury returned an indictment
against

Barnes

for

murder.

Barnes's

bail

obligation

was

transferred to the circuit court pursuant to Rule 7.6(a), Ala.
R. Crim. P. Barnes was arraigned before the circuit court on
July 21, 2017. The circuit court set the case for trial on
February 26, 2018.
In November 2017, Barnes moved for an evidentiary hearing
seeking to establish immunity from prosecution on the basis
that he was acting in defense of others under § 13A-3-23(d),
Ala. Code 1975, at the time of the killing.1 Barnes alleged
1

Section 13A-3-23(d) entitles a defendant to a pretrial
hearing on immunity and provides: "A person who uses force,
2

 1180802
that he shot the victim, who was his wife's brother, when the
victim was attempting to break into Barnes's house. The
circuit court held a hearing on January 31, 2018, on the issue
of Barnes's immunity, and, following that hearing, the circuit
court entered an order finding that Barnes had not proven by
a preponderance of the evidence that the use of lethal force
was

justified.

Shortly

thereafter,

the

circuit

court

rescheduled the case for trial on August 20, 2018. After
granting two continuances -- one on a motion filed by the
State and the other on a motion filed by Barnes -- the circuit
court set the trial for May 13, 2019.
On May 10, 2019, Barnes's attorney moved for leave to
withdraw from representation of Barnes on the grounds that he
was having difficulty communicating with Barnes and that
Barnes had retained a new attorney. The circuit court granted
the motion to withdraw.
On May 13, 2019, Barnes appeared for trial with his new
attorney, and the circuit court questioned Barnes about his
former attorney's withdrawal. Barnes's new attorney stated
including deadly
this section is
action for the
determined to be

physical force, as justified and permitted in
immune from criminal prosecution and civil
use of such force, unless the force was
unlawful."
3

 1180802
that he and Barnes had discussed everything and that the
circuit court "won't have anymore problems with Mr. Barnes."
Before allowing additional explanation, the circuit court
announced that it would revoke Barnes's bond, stating:
"THE COURT: Well, let me tell you what pops into
my mind: A sua sponte the Court [sic]. This has the
feel of the purpose to delay the inevitable. That's
what it feels like to me.
"And so, frankly, I'm going to revoke his bond
because I think -- we are too broke. This Circuit is
too broke to let another precious trial setting go
past. And I have other people in here trying to get
speedy trial motions and all that stuff so I'm
taking him in. I'm revoking his bond."
Barnes's attorney objected to the circuit court's decision,
citing Rule 7.5, Ala. R. Crim. P. The circuit court responded:
"THE COURT: It may be an issue of first
impression, but when we have an excellent lawyer
with an excellent reputation -- and [Barnes's former
attorney] has that. He works in Federal Court. He
works in State Court. And then we swap horses right
before trial, the Court can only come to one
conclusion.
"And the gravity of the charge is one of the
factors that I can consider. And maybe this is an
issue of first impression that we'll have to test
out, but I've made my ruling.
"....
"[ATTORNEY FOR BARNES]: ... Judge, I would ask
you to consider one thing: The State of Alabama has
not moved -- and there's been no allegations
4

 1180802
whatsoever that he has violated
conditions of his bond. And --

the

terms

and

"THE COURT: This Court, like I said, sua sponte
of its own initiative is going to take this action
because this Court looked very strongly at the
record that we've done. And if I'm wrong, y'all can
show me, but I've made my ruling. So I'm going to go
ahead and take him in. ... You can go ahead and file
the motion to reconsider and give me the law. And
if I'm wrong, I will undo it."
Despite the circuit court's ruling, Barnes's attorney
announced that Barnes was ready for trial, and he asserted
that he had met with Barnes's former attorney and had reviewed
the evidence in detail. The circuit court replied that it
could not "make the State do that because on Friday both of
you were told that we're not [going to trial]."2 After the
hearing, the circuit court entered an order in which it stated
that Barnes had been taken into custody, set a hearing to
revoke Barnes's bail for the morning of the following day, and
directed Barnes's former attorney to appear at the revocation
hearing.
Later that day, the State filed what it styled "State's
Filing on Court's Order Revoking Defendant's Bond" in which it
requested a hearing regarding the conditions of Barnes's bail
2

The circuit court had not entered an order continuing the
May 13, 2019, trial date.
5

 1180802
based on its belief that Barnes's "actions may solely be an
attempt to delay his trial." The State did not move to have
Barnes's bail revoked, and it did not assert that Barnes had
violated any conditions of his release.
On

May

14,

2019,

Barnes's

attorney

filed

a

motion

requesting the circuit court to release Barnes and asking for
a continuance of the revocation hearing set for that day. At
the beginning of the hearing, the circuit court stated that it
would not continue the hearing, noting that the hearing had to
be held within 72 hours after Barnes was taken into custody.
Barnes requested a delay until at least the afternoon to have
time to prepare a response. The circuit court denied Barnes's
request and proceeded to hold the hearing. The circuit court
stated:
"And I will tell you on the record that I did
some research yesterday, and I don't know that
there's any precedent for what I did. This may be an
issue of first impression.
"I stand on the record that I made yesterday
about how this case proceeded. I stand on the record
yesterday about [Barnes] terminating [his former
attorney,] who has an excellent reputation as
attorney on the eve of trial."
The circuit court then asked Barnes's former attorney,
over Barnes's objections, whether Barnes had met his financial
6

 1180802
obligations to the attorney. When his former attorney replied
that Barnes had not met his financial obligations, the circuit
court

stated:

"Okay.

That's

all

I

need

to

know."

proceedings continued, with the circuit court asking:
"THE COURT: Is there anything else anybody needs
to add?
"[ATTORNEY FOR BARNES]: I just have argument.
"THE COURT: Okay.
"[ATTORNEY
argument?

FOR

BARNES]:

The

State

has

no

"[ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE]: Well, I agree with
the Court's statement in that I was unable to locate
any precedent for this particular sequence of
events. It does seem to be in a gray area of Rule
7.5. The question is, is revoking the bond until the
next trial date is set the only remedy that is
possible. That Rule 7.5 is full of several
discretionary statements what the Court may do.
"THE COURT: What sentence would he be looking
for [if] he was convicted of what ... he's charged
with? He's charged with murder.
"[ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE]: He's charged with a
Class A Felony, committed with a gun. And is a
minimum 20, maximum of life. His one prior
conviction does not alter that sentence range.
"THE COURT: So the minimum he would face would
be 20 years?
"[ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE]: If he were found
guilty as charged.

7

The

 1180802
"THE COURT: If he were found guilty. If he were
found guilty.
"Well, in this highly unusual situation, I will
say on the record again, I pondered it over the
weekend that it strikes me odd that he'd fire an
extremely competent counsel on the eve of a trial
that set back in -- I think it was January -February 18th I think was the order setting the
trial for yesterday.
"And I will tell you on the record that
[Barnes's new attorney] whispered to me yesterday
morning before we started that he had not entered
that appearance that the Court had asked for because
he was want[ing] to make sure he got his money to be
paid.
"And so with the financial obligation that
remains outstanding to [Barnes's former attorney],
and the fact that [Barnes's new attorney] was paid
by his admission, then the Court finds it all highly
unusual. And so I would like appellate guidance
because I personally think the man is a flight risk.
And if I'm wrong, I'm sure mandamus petition will
fly and they will tell me very shortly that I am
wrong and I will put you back out on bond.
"But the problem is with 13th Circuit so
sever[e]ly underfunded and the fact that we have had
to schedule this murder trial -- and both of you are
busy with such trials that feeding this case in has
been a problem for the Court. It has to be
reschedule[d]. It will be delayed for eight or nine
months longer.
"Now, the Court's done. If [Barnes's attorney]
wants to make his record -- make his argument.
"[ATTORNEY FOR BARNES]: I'd like to note that
the Court just announced he's done and I have not

8

 1180802
even had a chance to present my argument. And so
this is just a record.
"First off, I have not been able to even present
an argument on behalf of [Barnes's] half [sic]. And
what we've heard here today is that even the Court
and the State ... admit that they can't find a
single statutory -- anything in the rules or the
statutes that justified taking this man's freedom.
However, the Court has stated that he's going to do
it anyway until somebody tells him differently. It
is all based upon what the Judge believes, not based
on any evidence put before the Court.
"And in addition to the other pleadings that I
have that there is not any condition in Rule 7.3[,
Ala. R. Crim. P.,] or 7.5 that allows for what's
taken place today.
"So essentially what has taken place is the
Court is saying that we're not going to follow the
law. That I'm going to make you go to Montgomery to
find justice. And I believe that that is just not
right, Judge. And I ask that you release him on his
bond and follow the law which is Rule 7.[5]. Have
the Prosecutor file a motion before ruling on it,
and then set the case for a hearing.
"Thank you.
"THE
COURT:
concluded."

All

right.

This

matter

is

After the hearing, the circuit court entered an order
denying Barnes's motion for release. Barnes filed a petition
for writ of habeas corpus in the Alabama Court of Criminal
Appeals. That court, citing § 15-21-6(a), Ala. Code 1975,
dismissed Barnes's petition because Barnes had not first
9

 1180802
addressed his petition to the nearest circuit-court judge.
Thereafter, Barnes filed a habeas petition in this Court. On
October 10, 2019, in response to Barnes's motion to stay
enforcement of the circuit court's order revoking his bail,
this Court stayed the order and ordered Barnes released from
custody on his original bond.
Discussion
Barnes argues that the circuit court's revocation of his
bail violated his procedural due-process rights because, he
says, the circuit court did not comply with Rule 7.5, Ala. R.
Crim. P. Specifically, Barnes asserts, the circuit court
revoked Barnes's bail without a motion having been made by the
State, without holding a hearing, and without any evidence to
support revocation. Barnes further argues that the State's
belated "Filing on Court's Order Revoking Defendant's Bond"
does not cure the circuit court's wrongful revocation.
Judge Patterson filed a response brief in opposition to
Barnes's petition.3 In his brief, Judge Patterson asserts
that, in light of the testimony from the immunity hearing, the
gravity of the charge, the fact that Barnes could be sentenced
3

This Court ordered all respondents, including Judge
Patterson, to file an answer to Barnes's petition.
10

 1180802
to a minimum of 20 years, and Barnes's refusal to work with
his former attorney, he determined that Barnes was attempting
to delay his trial. Judge Patterson contends that, after
holding a 72-hour hearing, he revoked Barnes's bail because he
considered Barnes to be a flight risk. Judge Patterson does
not cite any authority in support of his reasoning.
The State does not dispute Barnes's arguments concerning
the circuit court's revocation order. Instead, the State
asserts that, pursuant to § 15–21–6(a), Ala. Code 1975, Barnes
was required to first file a habeas petition in the circuit
court rather than filing the petition directly with the Court
of Criminal Appeals. Section 15-21-6(a) states: "When the
person is confined in a county jail or any other place on a
charge of felony or under a commitment or an indictment for
felony, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be
addressed to the nearest circuit court judge."
We first address whether Barnes correctly filed his
petition in the appellate courts, or whether he should have
first filed his petition in the circuit court pursuant to §
15–21–6(a). This Court has stated that § 15–21–6, upon which
the

Court

of

Criminal

Appeals

11

relied

in

dismissing

the

 1180802
petition, "implicates not jurisdiction, but venue." Ex parte
Culbreth, 966 So. 2d 910, 912 (Ala. 2006). Moreover, § 141(d),
Ala. Const. 1901, authorizes the Court of Criminal Appeals to
issue writs of habeas corpus:
"The court of criminal appeals shall have and
exercise original jurisdiction in the issuance and
determination of writs of quo warranto and mandamus
in relation to matters in which said court has
appellate jurisdiction. Said court shall have
authority to issue writs of injunction, habeas
corpus and such other remedial and original writs as
are necessary to give it a general superintendence
and control of jurisdiction inferior to it and in
matters over which it has exclusive appellate
jurisdiction; to punish for contempts by the
infliction of a fine as high as one hundred dollars,
and imprisonment not exceeding ten days, one or
both, and to exercise such other powers as may be
given to said court by law."
(Emphasis added.) In addition, § 12-3-11, Ala. Code 1975,
provides that the courts of appeals "shall have authority to
... issue writs of habeas corpus and such other remedial and
original

writs

as

are

necessary

to

give

it

a

general

superintendence and control of jurisdiction inferior to it."
Similarly, this Court has the authority to issue writs of
habeas corpus and to review petitions for habeas corpus that
have

been

denied

by

the

intermediate

appellate

courts.

Section 140(b), Ala. Const. 1901, provides that "[t]he supreme

12

 1180802
court shall have original jurisdiction ... to issue such
remedial writs or orders as may be necessary to give it
general

supervision

and

control

of

courts

of

inferior

jurisdiction ...." See also § 12-2-7(3), Ala. Code 1975
(granting this Court the authority "[t]o issue writs of
injunction,

habeas

corpus,

and

such

other

remedial

and

original writs as are necessary to give to it a general
superintendence

and

control

of

courts

of

inferior

jurisdiction"). Rule 21(e)(1), Ala. R. App. P., authorizes
this Court to review petitions for the writ of habeas corpus
that have been denied by an intermediate appellate courts.
That rule states:
"A decision of a court of appeals on an original
petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition or
other extraordinary writ (i.e., a decision on a
petition filed in the court of appeals) may be
reviewed de novo in the supreme court, and an
application for rehearing in the court of appeals is
not a prerequisite for such review. If an original
petition for extraordinary relief has been denied by
the court of appeals, review may be had by filing a
similar petition in the supreme court (and, in such
a case, in the supreme court the petition shall seek
a writ directed to the trial judge)."
In Ex parte Stokes, 990 So. 2d 852, 856 (Ala. 2008), this
Court reviewed a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals
denying a defendant's petition for habeas relief. We explained
13

 1180802
that "[a] petition for a writ of habeas corpus is the proper
vehicle

by

which

to

challenge

the

setting

of

allegedly

excessive bail." 990 So. 2d at 856 (citing Ex parte Colbert,
717 So. 2d 868, 870 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998)). In Ex parte
Colbert, the district court initially set the defendant's bail
at $1 million and then reduced it to $500,000.

The defendant

filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus in the circuit
court requesting that bail be further reduced, but the circuit
court instead revoked the defendant's bail.

The defendant

filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of
Criminal Appeals. The State contended that the defendant
should have first filed a direct appeal from the circuit
court's denial of the petition rather than seeking habeas
relief in the Court of Criminal Appeals. That court held that,
under § 141, it "will entertain original petitions for a writ
of habeas corpus arising out of a circuit court's denial of,
or the setting of excessive, pretrial bail." Ex parte Colbert,
717 So. 2d at 870 (overruling Clay v. State, 561 So. 2d 1116
(Ala. Crim. App. 1990)). The Court of Criminal Appeals stated:
"The purpose of a habeas corpus petition is
defined in Black's Law Dictionary 709 (6th ed.
1990), as 'to [seek] release from unlawful
imprisonment.' Indeed, attacking the denial of
14

 1180802
pretrial bail would be a futile exercise if a party
was forced to file a direct appeal and await the
result of the appellate process, rather than to
obtain immediate relief by filing an original habeas
corpus petition with this Court. In Ex parte Lee,
275 Ala. [343] at 344, 155 So. 2d 296 [at 297
(1963)], the Alabama Supreme Court stated, '[t]his
court in the absence of unusual circumstances will
not entertain an original petition for writ of
habeas corpus.' Certainly, a circuit court's denial
of bail in a case where bail is constitutionally
required is the 'unusual circumstance' envisioned in
Lee."
717 So. 2d at 870 (emphasis added). Likewise, in Ex parte
Patterson, 70 So. 3d 435, 436 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011), the
Court of Criminal Appeals granted an original habeas corpus
petition filed in that court challenging a trial court's
refusal

to

reinstate

a

defendant's

pretrial

bail

after

revocation.
As discussed in further detail below, Barnes's case
presents not just an unusual circumstance, but a circumstance
involving a questionable sua sponte decision by the circuit
court revoking a defendant's bail after the defendant changed
attorneys and after the defendant appeared in court on the
trial date.

Under § 141 and § 12-3-11, Barnes's petition was

ripe for review by the Court of Criminal Appeals, and that
court, under the particular circumstances of this case, was

15

 1180802
incorrect in dismissing Barnes's petition pursuant to § 15-216.

We further recognize the futility created by requiring a

defendant to file a petition for the writ of habeas corpus in
the first instance with the same court that ordered the
revocation of release.
We now turn to our de novo review of the merits of
Barnes's petition for habeas relief. See Rule 21(e)(1). It is
well settled that, unless charged with a capital offense, an
accused has an absolute right to pretrial bail and that the
bail imposed shall not be excessive. See Art. I, § 16, Ala.
Const. 1901; § 15-13-2, Ala. Code 1975. "'The purposes of bail
are to secure the accused's attendance [at trial], and avoid
the imprisonment of persons still entitled to a presumption of
innocence, among others.'" Ex parte Patterson, 70 So. 3d at
437 (quoting 8 C.J.S. Bail § 6 (2010)). See also § 15-13-102,
Ala. Code 1975 ("The primary purpose of bail is to procure the
release of a person charged with an offense upon obtaining
assurance, with or without security, of the defendant's future
appearance in court."). As the Court of Criminal Appeals
explained in Ex parte Fleming, 814 So. 2d 302, 303 (Ala. Crim.

16

 1180802
App. 2001), "a defendant may forfeit his constitutional right
to pretrial bail by his conduct while out on bail."
Rule 7.5, Ala. R. Crim. P., establishes the procedure for
bail-revocation proceedings.4 Pursuant to that rule, the State
4

Rule 7.5 states:

"(a) Issuance of Warrant. Upon motion of the
prosecutor stating with particularity the facts or
circumstances constituting a material breach of the
conditions of release or stating with particularity
that material misrepresentations or omissions of
fact were made in securing the defendant's release,
the court having jurisdiction ever the defendant
released shall issue an arrest warrant under Rule
3.1 to secure the defendant's presence in court. A
copy of the motion shall be served with the warrant,
and a hearing shall be held on the motion without
undue delay, except in no event later than
seventy-two (72) hours after the arrest of the
defendant released, as provided in Rule 4.3(a).
"(b) Hearing; Review of Conditions; Revocation
of Release. If, after a hearing on the matters set
forth in the motion, the court finds that the
defendant released has not complied with or has
violated the conditions of release, or that material
misrepresentations or omissions of fact were made in
securing the defendant's release, the court may
modify the conditions or revoke the release. If a
ground alleged for revocation of the release is that
the defendant released has violated the condition
under Rule 7.3(a)(2) by committing a criminal
offense, or that there was a misrepresentation or
omission concerning other charges pending against
the defendant released, the court may modify the
conditions of release or revoke the release after a
hearing, if the court finds that there is probable
cause (or if there has already been a finding of
17

 1180802
is required to file a motion "stating with particularity the
facts or circumstances constituting a material breach of the
conditions of release or stating with particularity that
material misrepresentations or omissions of fact were made in
securing the defendant's release." Rule 7.5(a). After the
filing of the State's motion, the trial court "shall issue an
arrest warrant under Rule 3.1[, Ala. R. Crim. P.,] to secure
the defendant's presence in court," and the motion and the
warrant must be served on the defendant. Within 72 hours of
the defendant's arrest on the revocation warrant, the trial
court must hold a hearing on the motion and must, thereafter,
determine whether the defendant has "complied with or has
violated the conditions of release" or whether "material
misrepresentations or omissions of fact were made in securing
the defendant's release." Rule 7.5(b).
The revocation procedure used by the circuit court was in
complete disregard of Rule 7.5. The circuit court revoked
Barnes's bail and ordered Barnes to be taken into custody
immediately without the State having filed a motion, without

probable cause) to believe that the defendant
released committed the other offense or offenses
charged."
18

 1180802
issuing a warrant for Barnes's arrest, and without holding a
hearing on matters asserted in a motion by the State. The
circuit court received no evidence indicating that Barnes had
violated the conditions of release set forth under Rule 7.3,
Ala. R. Crim P.,5 or that revocation was otherwise warranted
5

Rule 7.3 states:

"(a) Mandatory Conditions. Every order of
release under this rule shall contain the conditions
that the defendant:
"(1) Appear to answer and to submit to
the orders and process of the court having
jurisdiction of the case;
"(2) Refrain
criminal offense;

from

committing

any

"(3) Not depart from the state without
leave of court; and
"(4) Promptly notify the court of any
change of address.
"(b) Additional Conditions. An order of release
may include any one or more of the following
conditions
reasonably
necessary
to
secure
a
defendant's appearance:
"(1) Execution of an appearance bond
in an amount specified by the court, either
with
or
without
requiring
that
the
defendant deposit with the clerk security
in an amount as required by the court;
"(2) Execution of a secured appearance
bond;
19

 1180802
under Rule 7.5. Although the circuit court held a hearing the
day after it announced it was revoking Barnes's bail and
ordered that Barnes be taken into custody, the circuit court
did

not

receive

evidence

supporting

revocation

at

that

hearing. Moreover, before providing Barnes an opportunity to
present his argument, the circuit court announced that it was
"done." Despite continued objections by Barnes's attorney and
the

circuit

court's

acknowledgment

that

there

was

"no

precedent for what [it] did," the circuit court doubled down
on its decision and refused to reinstate Barnes's bail. The
May 14, 2019, hearing was in no way the meaningful hearing
that due process requires.
Additionally, the circuit court's decision to revoke
Barnes's release is not supported by the materials submitted
"(3) Placing the defendant in
custody
of
a
designated
person
organization agreeing to supervise
defendant;

the
or
the

"(4) Restrictions on the defendant's
travel, associations, or place of abode
during the period of release;
"(5) Return to custody after specified
hours; or
"(6) Any other conditions which the
court deems reasonably necessary."
20

 1180802
to this Court.

None of the reasons given by the circuit court

indicate that Barnes had failed to comply with or had violated
his conditions of release or that Barnes had made material
misrepresentations or omissions of fact to the district court
when bail was initially granted. To the extent the circuit
court now contends that it based its decision on evidence
presented at the immunity hearing, that hearing was held in
January 2019 -- four months before the circuit court decided
to revoke Barnes's bail -- and cannot serve as a basis for
revocation.

A

defendant's

decision

to

change

his

representation, even at the last minute, is not a justifiable
reason to revoke bail, nor is a defendant's failure to pay his
attorney a reason to revoke a defendant's bail. A defendant's
request to continue a trial setting, likewise, is not a
permissible reason to revoke bail. Moreover, a perceived lack
of funding of the court system is not a relevant consideration
in determining whether to revoke a defendant's bail.
In addition, nothing in the record supports the circuit
court's determination that Barnes had become a flight risk. No
evidence was produced showing that Barnes had failed to appear
at any hearing or that Barnes's appearance at trial would not

21

 1180802
be reasonably assured by the conditions of release initially
imposed. To the contrary, Barnes appeared in court on May 13,
2019, the trial date, and announced that he was ready to
proceed with the trial. This fact alone underscores the
imprudence of the circuit court's deeming Barnes to be a
flight risk. How can a defendant who has appeared on the date
of trial be found to be at risk of fleeing from his obligation
to attend the trial? Given the totality of the circumstances,
the

circuit

court's

revocation

order

appears

to

be

an

impermissible, vexatious measure designed to punish Barnes for
what the circuit court thought were attempts to delay trial,
rather than a legitimate attempt to secure Barnes's presence
at trial. See § 15-13-102.
The circuit court erred by basing the revocation on an
unsupported and unsubstantiated belief that Barnes intended to
delay his trial setting and had become a flight risk, rather
than on evidence satisfying the requirements for revocation in
Rule 7.5. Furthermore, the circuit court erred in denying
Barnes's request to reinstate his pretrial bail -- a right to
which

he

was

entitled

under

the

law,

regardless

of

the

heinousness of the crime he is accused of committing. See Art.

22

 1180802
I,

§

16,

Ala.

Const.

1901.

Accordingly,

Barnes

has

demonstrated that he has been illegally detained and that he
is entitled to relief.6 See Ex parte Boykins, 862 So. 2d 587,
591 (Ala. 2002)(quoting Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415,
421 (1959))(explaining that the purpose of a writ of habeas
corpus "'is to inquire into the legality of the detention of
one in custody'" (emphasis omitted)).
Conclusion
We grant Barnes's petition and direct the circuit court
to vacate its order revoking Barnes's bail and to reinstate
Barnes's original bail.
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.
Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers,
Mendheim, Stewart, and Mitchell, JJ., concur.

6

But for this Court's granting Barnes's motion to stay
enforcement of the revocation, Barnes would still be illegally
detained.
23