Mark Allen Jenkins v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/17/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 CR-08-0490 Mark A l l e n Jenkins v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal WINDOM, Allen dismissal his St. C l a i r C i r c u i t (CC-89-68.61) Court Judge. Mark pursuant from Jenkins appeals of h i s p e t i t i o n to Rule March the c i r c u i t for postconviction 3 2 , A l a . R. C r i m . 1991 convictions court's P., i n w h i c h f o r two counts summary relief he filed attacked of murder made CR-08-0490 capital b e c a u s e t h e m u r d e r was a r o b b e r y and 40(a)(1), a kidnapping, Ala. Code recommended t h a t see §§ By 1 975. a 13A-5-40(a)(2) vote 10-2, the jury c o u r t a c c e p t e d t h e j u r y ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n and s e n t e n c e d Jenkins On for his capital-murder convictions. February convictions 1034 and and Court death 28, 1992, sentence. ( A l a . Crim. Supreme App. See Ex May 26, 1995, f i r s t R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n he raised May Jenkins's State, 28, 1993, 28, Jenkins, 1994, the denied Jenkins's p e t i t i o n On J e n k i n s v. parte Court 511 affirmed 627 the Jenkins's capital-murder March Alabama, Court On 1993). v. On See 1 1992). affirmed sentence. this (Ala. Jenkins to death. 13A-5- circuit death sentenced of and of The to J e n k i n s be committed d u r i n g the course U.S. Jenkins, United for a writ 1012 627 So. 2d Alabama convictions So. States 2d 1054 Supreme of c e r t i o r a r i . See (1994). through counsel, i n the St. C l a i r C i r c u i t numerous c l a i m s f o r r e l i e f . 2 On filed his Court i n which November 26, 1996, This Court's decision on direct appeal provides a d e t a i l e d account of the f a c t s of J e n k i n s ' s crime. Jenkins, 627 So. 2 d a t 1 0 3 7 - 4 0 . Therefore, t h i s Court w i l l not repeat t h o s e f a c t s , many o f w h i c h a r e n o t r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e s before this Court. 1 T h i s C o u r t has taken j u d i c i a l notice of a l l of i t s records r e l a t i n g to Jenkins's previous proceedings, including, 2 2 CR-08-0490 Jenkins filed alleged, trial among because that C. a n amendment other at 257-59.) On amended Rule hearing until that failed and h i s w i f e conducted the f i r s t first things, J u r o r L.V. h e r nephew to h i s Rule he Rule had been murdered. December 32 p e t i t i o n a later 32 10, 1996, and p o s t p o n e d date. On P., pursuant because o r on d i r e c t the State petition to Rules i t could appeal. the i n which 4 32.2(a)(3) i t asserted, h a v e b e e n , b u t was Thereafter, new dire ( 1 s t R. 3 Jenkins's t h e two to 32 court of the 18, 1997, a f t e r a response and voir circuit but before filed to a the remainder January things, that Jenkins's juror-misconduct barred entitled d a y o f a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on of the hearing, amended was i n w h i c h he to disclose during day o f t h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g days 32 p e t i t i o n the final Jenkins's among other c l a i m was p r o c e d u r a l l y (a)(5), A l a . R. Crim. not, raised at trial on J a n u a r y 20 a n d 2 1 , 1 9 9 7 , but not l i m i t e d t o , the t r a n s c r i p t s of Jenkins's d i r e c t appeal and t h e t r a n s c r i p t s o f J e n k i n s ' s f i r s t R u l e 32 proceedings. See H u l l v . S t a t e , 607 S o . 2 d 3 6 9 , 3 7 1 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) . The j u r o r - m i s c o n d u c t claim raised i n Jenkins's first a m e n d e d R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n i s t h e o n l y c l a i m r e l e v a n t t o h i s a p p e a l f r o m t h e d i s m i s s a l o f h i s s u c c e s s i v e R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . 3 I n h i s b r i e f t o t h i s C o u r t , J e n k i n s a s s e r t s t h a t : "The S t a t e f i l e d no r e s p o n s e t o Mr. J e n k i n s ' [ s ] amended p e t i t i o n p r i o r to the conclusion of the e v i d e n t i a r y hearing. A f t e r the hearing concluded, the State argued f o r the f i r s t time t h a t 4 3 CR-08-0490 the circuit hearing, of conducted which attorneys. 1997, petition. circuit court procedurally 32 her R. Crim. not, r a i s e d at P., circuit C. at in pursuant court contained 267-346.) relevant his wife to Rules because t h i s or on the evidentiary testimony of one 5 nephew and trial of the issued a detailed in Jenkins's In part, t h a t J u r o r L.V.'s f a i l u r e barred Ala. presented the determined, dire that remainder on t h e c l a i m s ( 1 s t R. claim contending 275, Jenkins trial denying r e l i e f voir the December 31, On 32 during h i s two order court had Rule i t s order, that Jenkins's to d i s c l o s e during been murdered 32.2(a)(3) and appeal. ( 1 s t R. was (a)(5), c l a i m c o u l d have been, but direct the 32 C. was at 282.) On court's February 27, 2004, this d e n i a l of J e n k i n s ' s Rule Court 32 affirmed petition. See the circuit Jenkins v. Mr. J e n k i n s ' [ s ] j u r o r m i s c o n d u c t c l a i m s h o u l d be precluded under Rule 32.2(a) because i t c o u l d have been r a i s e d at t r i a l o r on d i r e c t a p p e a l . " ( J e n k i n s ' s b r i e f , a t 5.) Contrary to Jenkins's assertion to this Court, the State filed its r e s p o n s e t o h i s a m e n d e d R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n a n d a s s e r t e d the p r o c e d u r a l bars p r i o r to the c o n c l u s i o n of the e v i d e n t i a r y hearing. A t t r i a l , J e n k i n s was r e p r e s e n t e d b y D o u g l a s S c o f i e l d a n d S t a n Downey. (R. 2 7 0 - 4 4 9 . ) A l t h o u g h J e n k i n s was represented b y t w o a t t o r n e y s a t t r i a l , S c o f i e l d was t h e o n l y a t t o r n e y t o t e s t i f y a t t h e R u l e 32 h e a r i n g . ( 1 s t R. 32 R. a t 2 7 8 - 4 2 0 . ) 5 4 CR-08-0490 State, this 972 So. Court 2d barred pursuant was raised (Ala. Crim. that held 111 Jenkins's to Rule i n an and original petition. Alabama d i d not Supreme 2004). amendment relate Id. Court at Specifically, juror-misconduct 3 2 . 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. untimely petition App. back Crim. to original the because i t Rule any claim 120-21. On April this J e n k i n s ' s j u r o r - m i s c o n d u c t c l a i m was raised Court's 2d 159 November circuit court's order relating to j u r o r misconduct. 165 court's (Ala. Crim. decision, the that remanded See Ex p a r t e ( A l a . 2005). On 2d 23, the t i m e - b a r r e d and Jenkins, So. in holding Court f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. 32 2005, 8, the cause to t h i s 972 was P., to reversed claim 2005, this denying App. this Court relief See 2005). Court again on Jenkins's J e n k i n s v. In noted affirmed State, affirming that the Jenkins the claim 972 So. circuit failed to p r e s e n t any e v i d e n c e d u r i n g t h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g i n d i c a t i n g that his juror-misconduct claim have been appeal. discovered Id. at in 167-68. time was to not raise Specifically, known i t at this and could trial or on Court e x p l a i n e d : " J e n k i n s s u b m i t t e d no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g why t h i s c l a i m was r a i s e d i n t h e R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n and not in earlier proceedings. Jenkins's attorney o f f e r e d no e x p l a n a t i o n a t t h e R u l e 32 h e a r i n g . The 5 not CR-08-0490 only reference i n the record concerning the lateness of r a i s i n g t h i s c l a i m i s the f o l l o w i n g statement contained i n a r e s p o n s e f i l e d by J e n k i n s : 'After f i l i n g h i s p e t i t i o n f o r p o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f but p r i o r t o t h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g i n t h i s c a s e , Mr. J e n k i n s o b t a i n e d new e v i d e n c e s u g g e s t i n g t h a t [ L . V . ] had a close relative who had been murdered.' ( S u p p l e m e n t a l r e c o r d , v o l . I I I , p. 4 0 2 . ) " Id. a t 167. evidence could parte was 2d raised applying Pierce, the 168. Alabama counsel Supreme because Ex claim Court's i t could parte or on appeal contained ... i n Rule m u s t ] show t h a t or on d i r e c t Court of claim [and to 32.2(a), his claim appeal"). entered i f i t could an o r d e r On could and thus earlier, this holding that the was 972 So. at 614 So. 2d (5) w o u l d p r e c l u d e the procedural P., the [a trial bars petitioner not have been r a i s e d a t 18, 2007, the Alabama denying Jenkins's petition 6 claim but 851 Crim. Ex been, May certiorari. in have been r a i s e d a t overcome A l a . R. of any v. S t a t e , Jenkins ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t " R u l e [ s ] 3 2 . 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) and juror-misconduct] have Pierce, to present knew ( A l a . 2000), h e l d o r on a p p e a l . also failed juror-misconduct barred See Jenkins trial 851 S o . 2 d 606 r a i s e d at t r i a l at that whether the procedurally not, noting indicating have Court, After trial Supreme for a writ CR-08-0490 On May 15, petition for District Court Jenkins writ filed 746 summary raised the habeas f o r the issued this R. In of Burgess's Court that Burgess's P., because trial (a)(5) ("A petitioner will upon any or on Rule on or appeal, ... Rule States of Alabama. After the Alabama circuit petition 751. whether Id. See Court court's i n which this been, Rule So. he Specifically, 32.2(a)(3) i t c o u l d have 21 Supreme Court had claim juror-misconduct was and but (a)(5), was not, 3 2 . 2 ( a ) (3) and 32] 3) [ w ] h i c h c o u l d h a v e b e e n b u t was u n l e s s the ground unless the Id. at 2254 n o t be g i v e n r e l i e f u n d e r [ R u l e ... 5) § United Alabama 32 to Rules appeal. ground: not r a i s e d at t r i a l , raised the of reviewed barred pursuant Crim. 32.1(b); in the affirmance at Rule U.S.C. i n Ex p a r t e B u r g e s s , Burgess, raised based 28 District i t s decision Supreme held procedurally a corpus a juror-misconduct claim. properly filed Northern Court's dismissal Alabama Ala. of ( A l a . 2008). reviewed Jenkins h i s f e d e r a l habeas corpus p e t i t i o n , Supreme C o u r t 3d 2008, for relief arises [ w ] h i c h c o u l d have the ground 32.1(b)."). 7 been for relief but was arises under not under CR-08-0490 In Ex parte Burgess, this Court's (Ala. Crim. App. 851 So. Pierce, decision i n State 1992 ) , 2d the Alabama and 60 6 v. Supreme Freeman, i t s own Court 605 So. decision ( A l a . 2000 ) , and applied 2d 1258 i n Ex parte reaffirmed the p r i n c i p l e e s t a b l i s h e d b y t h o s e c a s e s t h a t a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n e r raising to juror-misconduct disclose claim during information procedural bars contained R. P., Crim. i f that information was discovered, at t r i a l for new 751 trial (quoting added) ) . alleged The petitioner claim at t r i a l Supreme suspect not discovered petition until appeal. investigate any juror (a)(5), A l a . been Court 32 Burgess, So. 2d noted that i t was Id. possible misconduct. 8 the not r e a s o n a b l y have at i n a motion 21 So. 616 that the Court (emphasis Burgess to raise further or a p p e l l a t e juror-misconduct had 754-55. the noted counsel claims t h a t he h a d no Id. at 3d a t juror-misconduct too l a t e The t h a t Burgess had a l l e g e d i n h i s p e t i t i o n to overcome the Ex p a r t e 851 failure that i t was u n r e a s o n a b l e t o r e q u i r e t r i a l blindly may "establishe[s] Pierce, Alabama o r on dire or i n time to r a i s e the issue parte i n h i s Rule to a juror's i n R u l e s 3 2 . 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) and n o t known, and c o u l d Ex was to voir o r on a p p e a l . " claim that relating and reason Because CR-08-0490 Burgess had unaware of the juror-misconduct claim u n t i l raise the claim indicating in alleged at t r i a l that [alleged held that dismissal On court the Alabama of Burgess's stay 2, Rule 2008, Rule claim. Specifically, 32 ( A l a . 2008). granted or appears Supreme Court at the pleading procedurally I d . a t 751-55. reversed the summary I d . a t 755. the federal to allow him district to file h i s juror-misconduct a stay i n federal court h i s juror-misconduct claim pursuant to So. court Court reasserting Supreme C o u r t ' s district and ( a ) ( 5 ) . proceedings the Alabama 746 the Alabama J e n k i n s sought facts him or h i s counsel t o 32 p e t i t i o n . petition a l l o w him t o pursue 3d and had a l l e g e d J e n k i n s moved h i s habeas another to Supreme was i t was t o o l a t e t o j u r o r - m i s c o n d u c t c l a i m was to Rule 32.2(a)(3) October to h i s counsel erroneously determined, stage, that Burgess's Therefore, alerted misconduct]," Court barred pursuant that o r on a p p e a l c o u l d have juror this indicating "nothing occurred during the t r i a l the record that the facts On decision November i n Ex p a r t e B u r g e s s , 12, 2008, J e n k i n s ' s motion proceedings. 9 to stay the 21 federal h i s habeas CR-08-0490 On October 1, 2008, petition i n w h i c h he disclose during been murdered right to a C. at ... On Ala. the on October motion to d i s m i s s was In Jenkins's his record Rule of Crim. hearing, 2008, the merit. The c l a i m was argued, Jenkins's State pursuant November 25, dismissing denying and based 2008, further to on Rule the Jenkins's relief to had violated his petition, Jenkins evidentiary claim. filed (2d R. an answer the on the asserted and that without 32.7(d), circuit court petition as Rule was Ala. issued R. Jenkins's i t should Crim. P. a detailed procedurally 32 without because merit, and 32.2(c), previous claim 32 petition 3 2 . 2 ( b ) and juror-misconduct procedurally barred dismissed failure wife [previous] State 32 his trial his juror-misconduct 31, Rule i n which i t asserted that Jenkins's P., that and 32 the second L.V.'s nephew p r o c e d u r a l l y barred pursuant to Rules R. a Juror her before conducted" 6.) that trial. "incorporate[d] hearing dire years fair filed re-alleged that voir 20 Jenkins be On order barred and merits. I. Initially, a R u l e 32 "[w]hen r e v i e w i n g petition, this a circuit C o u r t a p p l i e s an 10 court's denial of abuse-of-discretion CR-08-0490 standard." S h o u l d i s v. App. (quoting 2008) (Ala. Crim. App. So. 2d 191 are undisputed is de 2004), and of law, (citing State Further, Rule P.,] Hill, the death and equal i f bars force to penalty quotations has (Ala. So. 2d the So. State, 2d and of Rule with 32 facts pure proceeding 1097, 1098 (Ala. 2d 1201, 1203 (Ala. does not involves 272, 277 apply 32[.2, death (Ala. Crim. omitted). A l a . R. including imposed." to the quotations a l l cases, been 885 2d case So. 154 "when t h e i n a Rule Crim. 152, i s presented So. citations with 903 error rule (internal "[t]he procedural citations 690 "[t]he plain even 761 However, 792 S t a t e , 962 apply which 2003)). B u r g e s s v. 2005) Finally, State, 753, i n t u r n McGahee v. White, v. proceedings, App. 3d appellate court parte 1996)). sentence." So. that court's review Ex 32 v. citing App. an novo." 2001) Whitman (Ala. Crim. questions S t a t e , 38 Id. Crim. those in (internal omitted). II. On appeal, violated his Specifically, his right to Jenkins right to first alleges that due process the for three J e n k i n s a s s e r t s t h a t the c i r c u i t due process by: A) 11 failing to circuit court make court reasons. violated independent CR-08-0490 findings of fact opportunity to and c o n c l u s i o n s file a o f l a w ; B) response denying to the State's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s ; a n d C) f a i l i n g t o t i m e l y s e r v e order d i s p o s i n g o f t h e R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . follow, these arguments are without h i m an answer and him with the For the reasons that merit. A Jenkins initially right t o due p r o c e s s order. (Jenkins's alleges that argues the c i r c u i t court violated his when t h e i t a d o p t e d t h e S t a t e ' s brief, a t 15-21). the c i r c u i t court proposed Specifically, failed t o make Jenkins independent f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law; therefore, this should proceedings. be remanded argument that findings of fact the circuit the record in order court the c i r c u i t court failed and c o n c l u s i o n s court could Rule Rule To s u p p o r t h i s t o make of law, Jenkins n o t have of the previous the second order f o r further reviewed independent asserts the t r i a l 32 p r o c e e d i n g , that record, the pleadings and t h e 24-page proposed i n t h e short time between r e c e i v i n g t h e S t a t e ' s proposed and a d o p t i n g "could independently not 32 p r o c e e d i n g s , cause i t . According have complied evaluate" to Jenkins, with h i s c l a i m because 12 the circuit i t s obligation " i t i s likely to that CR-08-0490 the circuit seeing As court i t f o r the discussed assumption without In Court signed first below, that the 24-page time." within (Jenkins's brief, Jenkins's i s unsupported order argument by the is record hours at 9, based and, on thus, of 16). an is merit. discussing has repeatedly the adoption of a proposed order, held: "The wholesale a d o p t i o n of o r d e r s p r o p o s e d by t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i s r e v i e w e d on a c a s e - b y - c a s e b a s i s and has been r e p e a t e d l y u p h e l d unless the f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s s e t out i n t h e o r d e r are c l e a r l y erroneous. As t h i s C o u r t r e c e n t l y s t a t e d i n H o d g e s v . S t a t e , [Ms. C R - 0 4 - 1 2 2 6 , M a r c h 2 3 , 2007] So.3d ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2007): "'"Hyde contends that the c i r c u i t court erred i n adopting the State's proposed order. Specifically, he argues that there are numerous f a c t u a l and l e g a l e r r o r s i n the order that i n d i c a t e t h a t the o r d e r does not represent the court's own i n d e p e n d e n t j u d g m e n t , b u t shows a wholesale adoption of the S t a t e ' s proposed order without consideration of his claims. However, this Court has r e p e a t e d l y upheld the p r a c t i c e of adopting the State's proposed order when denying a Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief. See, e.g., Coral v. State, 900 So. 2d 1274, 1288 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 4 ) , o v e r r u l e d 13 this CR-08-0490 on other grounds, Ex parte Jenkins, 972 So. 2d 159 (Ala. 2005), and the cases cited therein. 'Alabama c o u r t s have c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t e v e n when a t r i a l court adopts verbatim a party's proposed order, the f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and conclusions of law are those of the trial c o u r t and t h e y may be reversed only i f they are clearly erroneous.' McGahee v. State, 885 So. 2d 191, 229-30 (Ala. C r i m . App. 2003).'" "'[Hyde v. S t a t e , ] [ ( A l a . C r i m . App. 950 So. 2006)]. 2d [344] at 371 "'Thus, even when a circuit court adopts a proposed order i n i t s e n t i r e t y , t h e p e t i t i o n e r m u s t show t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and conclusions of law in that order are " c l e a r l y erroneous" before an appellate court will reverse the order s o l e l y on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e order was s u b m i t t e d by t h e S t a t e . ' " So. 3d a t . See a l s o Lee v. State, [Ms. C R - 0 7 - 0 0 5 4 , O c t . 9, 200 9] So. 3d (Ala. Crim. App. 2 0 0 9 ) ; M c N a b b v . S t a t e , 991 So. 2 d 313 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007). Here, the circuit court's f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s a r e n o t c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . Therefore, S c o t t i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o any r e l i e f on this claim." Scott , v. State, [Ms. (Ala. Crim. Jenkins's CR-06-2233, App. argument March 26, 2010] So. 3d 2010). that the circuit court independent f i n d i n g s of f a c t s or c o n c l u s i o n s 14 did not make of law because i t CR-08-0490 lacked and sufficient the 24-page time to review proposed a l l the records, order in the short pleadings, time r e c e i v i n g t h e S t a t e ' s p r o p o s e d o r d e r and a d o p t i n g between the order i s b a s e d on t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t was idle the 55 h i s Rule 32 petition and when the p e t i t i o n . Jenkins days between when the c i r c u i t filed h i s Rule filed 32 i t s answer October on court on and m o t i o n The November October 1, to dismiss circuit 25, filed dismissed petition 31, 2008. relief Jenkins court 2008. i t s order. Contrary p r o v i d e d p l e n t y of time signed Almost review In circuit the records an alternative court therefore, circuit argument, "reached i t erred (Jenkins's b r i e f , the and t h e p l e a d i n g s i n adopting a t 20.) court's clearly order petition months elapsed assertion, court to Jenkins asserts the State's Specifically, court 55 parties. that the conclusions"; proposed Jenkins order. asserts stated: " [ T ] h i s Court c r e d i t s [L.V.'s] testimony that she d i d not have a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h e r s i s t e r , much l e s s w i t h h e r s i s t e r ' s s o n , a t t h e t i m e of her nephew's death and finds that i t is 15 days independently by t h e erroneous on denying and t h e c i r c u i t filed erroneously State i t sorder two to Jenkins's f o r the c i r c u i t The Jenkins's between the f i l i n g of J e n k i n s ' s p e t i t i o n issuing 2008. during that CR-08-0490 reasonable to believe that she w o u l d not have mentioned h i s death when s h e was a s k e d t h e v e r y specific question of whether any o f h e r ' c l o s e r e l a t i v e s ' had been t h e v i c t i m of a c r i m e . (R. 2 8 6 ; R2. 1 0 . ) " (2d R. 32 C. clearly to 72.) According to Jenkins, this statement was e r r o n e o u s b e c a u s e J u r o r L.V. s t a t e d t h a t s h e was c l o s e her s i s t e r . The the J.V. c i r c u i t court's finding following during exchange Jenkins's [your a p p e a r s t o h a v e b e e n b a s e d on between first Jenkins's Rule counsel 32 i n March Juror hearing: nephew] m u r d e r e d and "Q: Was "A: Yeah, sure. "Q: A r e you c l o s e "A: Y e s , I'm I have. "Q: Does she l i v e "A: About "Q: Do y o u h a v e often? "A: I see h e r t h r e e t i m e s a week. help take care of her. "Q: A t t h e t i m e h e r s o n was m u r d e r e d , a l o t of contact with her? I guess. I t has been a l o n g t o your close three sister, o f 1971? time. Pauline? t o h e r . She a n d o n e m o r e close miles, an I'm n o t i sa l l t o you? I guess. opportunity 16 t o see h e r fairly She i s o l d a n d I d i d you have CR-08-0490 "A: No, b e c a u s e I w o r k e d t h e n . We d i d n ' t much o f e a c h o t h e r a s we do now. "Q: You were "A: Yes, of still see as close? course." ( 1 s t R. 32 R. a t 1 0 - 1 1 . ) L a t e r , L.V. t e s t i f i e d t h a t when t h e v e n i r e was a s k e d w h e t h e r a n y o n e ' s c l o s e f a m i l y member h a d b e e n the victim furtherest This of a crime, t h i n g from Court has L.V. stated [her] mind." that h e r nephew ( 1 s t R. 32 R. "was t h e a t 10.) explained: "'"'[A] finding i s "clearly erroneous" when although there i s evidence to support i t ,the r e v i e w i n g c o u r t on t h e e n t i r e e v i d e n c e i s l e f t w i t h the d e f i n i t e and f i r m c o n v i c t i o n t h a t a m i s t a k e has been committed.' U n i t e d S t a t e s v. U n i t e d States G y p s u m C o . , 333 U.S. 3 6 4 , 3 9 5 , 68 S. C t . 5 2 5 , 5 4 2 , 92 L. E d . 746 ( 1 9 4 8 ) . . . . I f the [ c i r c u i t ] court's account of the evidence i s p l a u s i b l e i n l i g h t of the record viewed i n i t s e n t i r e t y , the court of appeals may n o t r e v e r s e i t e v e n t h o u g h c o n v i n c e d t h a t h a d i t been s i t t i n g as t h e t r i e r o f f a c t , i t w o u l d have weighed the evidence d i f f e r e n t l y . Where t h e r e a r e two permissible views of the evidence, the f a c t f i n d e r ' s c h o i c e b e t w e e n them c a n n o t be c l e a r l y erroneous. U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Y e l l o w Cab C o . , 338 U.S. 3 3 8 , 342 , 70 S. C t . 1 7 7 , 1 7 9 , 94 L. E d . 150 (19 4 9 ) ; s e e a l s o I n w o o d L a b o r a t o r i e s , I n c . v . I v e s L a b o r a t o r i e s , I n c . , 456 U.S. 8 4 4 , 102 S. C t . 2 1 8 2 , 72 L. E d . 2 d 606 ( 1 9 8 2 ) . " [Anderson v. C i t y o f B e s s e m e r C i t y , N . C . ] , 470 U.S. [ 5 6 4 ] a t 5 7 3 - 7 4 , 105 S. C t . [ 1 5 0 4 ] a t 1 5 1 1 [ ( 1 9 8 5 ) ] . ' " 17 CR-08-0490 Barbour v. S t a t e , 903 S o . 2 d 8 5 8 , 862 (quoting Morrison App. v. S t a t e , (Ala. Crim. App. 551 S o . 2 d 4 3 5 , 4 3 6 - 3 7 2004) (Ala. Crim. 1989). Here, there Id. sister, a r e "two p e r m i s s i b l e Although she a l s o L.V. t e s t i f i e d t h a t testified that indicated (1st R. evidence s h e was c l o s e to her h e r nephew with her s i s t e r . s h e d i d n o t r e m e m b e r when h e r nephew was L.V. t e s t i f i e d t h a t d u r i n g voir her murder 32 R. "was the f u r t h e r e s t 10.) Based on thing her remember nephew's murder, from the testimony with d i d not dire, [her] mind." indicating her s i s t e r when this conclusion time Court her nephew that o f t h e n e p h e w ' s m u r d e r was even court's determination holdings say the circuit was voir court's t h a t L.V. was n o t c l o s e t o h e r s i s t e r a n d n e p h e w a t Moreover, circuit cannot that at the time of m u r d e r e d , and d i d n o t t h i n k o f h e r nephew's murder d u r i n g the L.V. that L.V. d i d n o t h a v e much c o n t a c t dire, was Further, murdered. nephew's of the at the time m u r d e r e d , s h e d i d n o t h a v e much c o n t a c t also views isolated would clearly i f this Court was the c i r c u i t See S t a t e 18 erroneous. were t o d e t e r m i n e statement not render erroneous. clearly that inaccurate, court's v. S m i t h , the this ultimate [Ms. C R - 0 6 - CR-08-0490 0 8 9 8 , O c t . 1, 2 0 1 0 ] So. 3d , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2010) (holding that the c i r c u i t court's erroneous determination that trial c o u n s e l was u n q u a l i f i e d a capital defendant g r a n t i n g Rule court made evidence petitioner d i d not render 32 r e l i e f extensive and relied relief). as a m a t t e r clearly the c i r c u i t erroneous findings on that numerous Here, of law to represent court's order because the c i r c u i t were supported by t h e grounds circuit the i n granting the court relied m u l t i p l e grounds t o deny J e n k i n s ' s r e q u e s t f o r r e l i e f on a n d made e x t e n s i v e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t t h a t were s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e presented at trial and at the Rule 32 hearing. More i m p o r t a n t l y , a s d i s c u s s e d i n more d e t a i l b e l o w , J e n k i n s ' s R u l e 32 petition was t i m e - b a r r e d o n i t s f a c e , and, as a m a t t e r o f l a w , e a c h o f J e n k i n s ' s a r g u m e n t s r e g a r d i n g why he b e l i e v e s t h e time limitation contained i n Rule does n o t a p p l y t o h i s Rule 45, 1185 A l a . R. C r i m . erroneous 32 p e t i t i o n P.; c f . P e r a i t a ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003) 3 2 . 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. C r i m . v. S t a t e , (holding d e t e r m i n a t i o n was h a r m l e s s alternative reason f o r the c i r c u i t S t a t e s v . A b b a s , 560 F . 3 d 6 6 0 , 6 6 6 - 6 7 19 lacks that merit. P., See R u l e 897 S o . 2 d 1 1 6 1 , the c i r c u i t court's when t h e r e was a court's action); ( 7 t h C i r . 2009) valid United (holding CR-08-0490 that a trial court's error i s harmless when i t had a l t e r n a t i v e h o l d i n g ) ; S h e d d e n v . P r i n c i p i , 381 (Fed. 448 C i r . 2004) (Ga. App. (same); 1977) (holding h a r m l e s s when t h e t r i a l grounds). Therefore, court's isolated Barton v. F.3d Gammell, that an a 1168 S.E.2d 238 1163, 445, erroneous finding court's d e c i s i o n i s supported this Court statement cannot say rendered that the valid by the is other circuit order clearly erroneous. Because all the and because order the c i r c u i t court and records p e r t a i n i n g to pleadings Jenkins denying established had has relief that the not was r e l i e f based on the time circuit erred Jenkins to review Jenkins's erroneous, court Therefore, this that clearly circuit State's proposed order. any shown sufficient in he claim court's has not adopting the i s not entitled to issue. B Jenkins relief on next his State's answer Rule does 32 contends the petition and not c i r c u i t court before motion provide to considering dismiss. for the 20 The filing erred his State of a in reply denying to argues reply to the that the CR-08-0490 State's response harmless. This Court Rule 32.6(a), p r o c e e d i n g under verified the and by clerk Ala. this a the even agrees R. rule Crim. P., filing or the p e t i t i o n e r ' s Rule to 32.6(b), disclose the necessary overcome procedural bars 1, A l a . R. 2007] Crim. So. P. See 3d is time-barred establish e n t i t l e m e n t to equitable tolling, principle of law o r any the equitable provision, Ala. to R. the Rule 32 may Crim. Rule 32 be P., or contained i t s face, petition asserts in Rule 1051818, June of summarily i t but the S t a t e 30 There does fails -- who, 21 to assert any petitioner limitations days to f i l e pursuant must state Rule no 32 doctrine not the "). i s , however, a Rule the applicable dismissed a l l o w s the f o r the p e t i t i o n e r a f f o r d e d by that facts petition that would e n t i t l e tolling petition. the P., basis any ("[W]hen A fact Crim. including [Ms. remedy that petition, factual p a r t e Ward, the tolling. equitable to on "[a] a ( A l a . 2007) , petition of relief, Ex that R. full to 32.2, was attorney, with Ala. entitlement the error provides establishing to any State. i s commenced by court." petitioner i f i t did, w i t h the the p e t i t i o n e r of requires that, a 32.7(a), response provision to Rule in 32.6(b), CR-08-0490 Ala. for R. Crim. P., his request his Rule 32 should have i n c l u d e d for relief petition and -- the full factual each of h i s l e g a l to file a reply basis assertions to the in State's response. Furthermore, requires the there circuit before dismissing courts have allows the that, on [the Alabama a 347-48 Rule 3d the await "Rule or has] from Bishop the to is precluded, the without be shows true, circuit that, requiring a attorney.")). 22 that from the State Ala. the Ex State, 60 8 of assuming response petition may for parte So. every without from and court Ward, 2d a petition summarily P., waiting without reading [may] Alabama R.Crim. trial State." v. as state a claim, i t i s obviously court 32 a R u l e 32 to that the ("Where a s i m p l e of petition fails such a p e t i t i o n petition relief 32.7(d), held Rule Instead, summarily dismiss i s precluded post-conviction in a response petition. held, to provision (citing at ( A l a . 1992) petition 32 Supreme C o u r t to no to summarily dismiss response So. a court i t s face, properly court repeatedly trial is for allegation merit dismiss the 345, or that district CR-08-0490 Recognizing State, these App. after the State petition circuit 2009), rejected filed and w i t h o u t court appeal, trial Beckworth court may p r o p e r l y State's 347-48 when summarily from the judgment response." the State and h e l d dismiss the State [n]o e r r o r occurred of Beckworth's other disagreed i t receives [,] entry Court Id. See B i s h o p ( h o l d i n g t h a t where a s i m p l e postconviction relief petition precluded, petition the without attorney); Scott requirement that circuit court a State, a circuit may 23 Id. "that the f i l e d i t s answer " that because of "the trial 32 p e t i t i o n a Rule even to the p e t i t i o n of the t r i a l court's i t s receipt v. S t a t e , reading of a p e t i t i o n f o r summarily response of the 608 S o . 2 d a t a l l e g a t i o n of without So. 3d a t court 32 the i t i s obviously requiring v. petition. shows t h a t , a s s u m i n g e v e r y t o be t r u e , Rule a reply, the things, a response days days i t dismissed as a r e s u l t within (Ala. Three to f i l e among o n l y three days a f t e r This before argued, , to Beckworth's a l l o w i n g Beckworth dismissed i n Beckworth v. argument. i t s discretion abused Id. the Court, So. 3d Jenkins's i t s response summarily court petition ... this [Ms. C R - 0 7 - 0 0 5 1 , May 1 , 200 9] Crim. On principles, from merit or i s dismiss that the district ("There even r e c e i v e a response i s no or a CR-08-0490 motion Rule to 32 circuit prior dismiss from the State petition."). Similarly, court err before did not in summarily this Court dismissing to r e c e i v i n g a r e p l y to the State's denying holds that Jenkins's a the petition answer and motion to dismiss. Moreover, even i f J e n k i n s to the State's circuit answer court committed petition Crim. the without P. As circuit well motion in the the had circuit opportunity review. More i m p o r t a n t l y , t h i s contained in discussed later in this arguments would not have proceedings. 6 See Rule See Rule 45, his reply i t s order. arguments Court has Jenkins's opinion, 4 5 , A l a . R. the Ala. but Therefore, is the App. for and, convinced outcome P.; of the appellate thoroughly reply R. after h i s arguments before his altered the d i s m i s s i n g the p e t i t i o n to p l e a d preserve error dismissing order any a reply filed entered court arguments to court circuit the and the Jenkins the order to f i l e dismiss, harmless. below, signed to signing r e p l y was discussed court before Jenkins the and d i d have a r i g h t reviewed as will that his Ex p a r t e be those Rule 32 Williams, I n h i s b r i e f t o t h i s C o u r t , J e n k i n s a s s e r t s t h a t he was p r e j u d i c e d by the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o s i g n the o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g h i s p e t i t i o n before r e c e i v i n g h i s r e p l y because " [ a ] t the time the c i r c u i t c o u r t s i g n e d the S t a t e ' s order, the 6 24 CR-08-0490 987 So. 2d 1122, 1126 ( A l a . 2007) rule, t h a t c o u r t must f i n d c o n c l u s i v e l y t h a t t h e t r i a l error d i d not a f f e c t to t h e outcome a substantial right quotations any r e l i e f omitted). based upon of 'harmless the t r i a l Jenkins error' court's or otherwise of the defendant.") Therefore, on t h i s the reviewing can a f f i r m and based the court prejudice a judgment ("[B]efore (citations i s not entitled issue. C. Jenkins violated court because had signed petition circuit until court reconsider the next argues he that his right d i d not receive t h e November December 25, 23, 2008. notice 2008 order According retained jurisdiction that notice of the dismissal u n t i l 28 d a y s signed the order, two days and t h e c i r c u i t the after was circuit to Jenkins, the to e n t e r t a i n a motion He t h e n a r g u e s t h a t b e c a u s e he h a d o n l y process dismissing the f o r o n l y 30 d a y s a f t e r s i g n i n g t h e o r d e r petition. reconsider t o due to dismissing he d i d n o t r e c e i v e the c i r c u i t to f i l e court h i s motion c o u r t h a d o n l y two days t o to consider only pleading i t had r e c e i v e d f r o m Mr. J e n k i n s was h i s successive p e t i t i o n , which contained only f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n s a n d no l e g a l a r g u m e n t s . " ( J e n k i n s ' s b r i e f , a t 25) ( e m p h a s i s added.) J e n k i n s ' s a s s e r t i o n i s b e l i e d by the r e c o r d . ( 2 d R. 32 C. 3-17.) 25 CR-08-0490 that motion. two days receive included then The This Court circuit Jenkins's in holiday, violation court rendered 32 petition on proposed order. P. ("A execution a Judge may separate Jenkins, he December 23, 2008. h i s motion his of d i d not to right render written i t s judgment November an See order 25, when The Rule 58(a), A l a . R. or judgment document circuit Information order System. 7 was See " ) . ... by According to court's action c o u r t , however, d i d not entered Rule dismissing when i t received notice of the c i r c u i t the due 2008, i t s judgment f o r f i n a l i t y and t i m i n g purposes u n t i l 2009, remaining disagrees. the State's signed Rule argues that because those the Christmas consideration process. Civ. Jenkins into 58(c), the A l a . R. State on enter January 2, Judicial C i v . P. ("An T h e a m e n d m e n t t o R u l e 5 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d i n g t h a t a j u d g m e n t i s e n t e r e d f o r f i n a l i t y p u r p o s e s when t h e order i s entered i n t o the State J u d i c i a l I n f o r m a t i o n System became e f f e c t i v e on S e p t e m b e r 19, 2006. The Committed C o m m e n t s t o t h e 2 0 0 6 a m e n d m e n t t o R u l e 5 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., explain: 7 " R u l e 5 8 ( c ) i s amended t o p r o v i d e f o r an unambiguous and u n i v e r s a l l y a v a i l a b l e r e c o r d o f t h e e n t r y o f judgment. Upon occasion, the loose-leaf docket sheets o r c a s e a c t i o n summary s h e e t s have been m i s p l a c e d a f t e r a judgment has been e n t e r e d , o r t h e c i r c u i t c l e r k f a i l e d to mail notice of the entry of judgment, such t h a t the time f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e of 26 CR-08-0490 order or a judgment meaning o f these of Rules the a c t u a l date the State Wright, R. 860 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 3 , 1 2 5 4 governs i s entered Jenkins received dismissing h i s Rule circuit when notice of 32 p e t i t i o n received court's an of Appellate System."); order judgment. (Rule dismissing of Ex into parte 58(c), A l a . a Rule court's 10 d a y s b e f o r e notice P r o c e d u r e as 32 Accordingly, circuit facts, the o r judgment purposes.). the within see a l s o ( A l a . 2002) Under these timely 'entered' of the order f o r timing a n d became f i n a l . Jenkins deemed and t h e Rules Information petition that be of the input Judicial C i v . P., entered shall that order this the order Court entry of was holds the 8 appeal began to run without the losing party's having e f f e c t i v e n o t i c e o f t h e e n t r y o f judgment o r the d e a d l i n e f o r f i l i n g a notice of appeal. ... [ U n d e r R u l e 5 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a s a m e n d e d , ] [t]he electronic records input into the [State J u d i c i a l I n f o r m a t i o n System] a r e a v a i l a b l e b o t h i n the c l e r k s ' o f f i c e s and through remote access over the I n t e r n e t . Thus, u n d e r t h e amended r u l e , an attorney or a party w i l l have v i r t u a l l y instant access t o t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t judgment has been entered." O n J a n u a r y 9, 2 0 0 9 , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t i s s u e d a n o r d e r h o l d i n g t h a t i t l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r u l e on Jenkins's m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r a n d h i s m o t i o n t o amend h i s p e t i t i o n . J e n k i n s d o e s n o t a r g u e on a p p e a l that the c i r c u i t court's r u l i n g s were e r r o n e o u s ; t h e r e f o r e , these i s s u e s a r e n o t b e f o r e 8 27 CR-08-0490 Moreover, untimely even manner, this further proceedings Ala. R. within App. P. 30 any arguments. court After Court is those pleadings none of the upon 'harmless Ex parte reviewing error' for Rule 45, rule, reconsider signing filed the order a timely notice Jenkins Jenkins's can to preserve throughly reviewed filed the after petition. pleadings, arguments this contained in outcome of h i s Rule the Williams, court cause d i s m i s s i n g the the an harmless. i n a l l the p l e a d i n g s that in this opportunity to has would have a l t e r e d See he l o s e the a l l of notice h i s motion and i t s order ("[B]efore the petition, signed convinced remand court reviewing thoroughly proceedings. filed Further, t h i s Court contained circuit not circuit d i d not receive e r r o r was Jenkins the 32 T h u s , he assertions the of did would b e c a u s e any h i s Rule of appeal. Jenkins Court Here, days dismissing i f 32 987 affirm that So. a 2d at judgment court must 1126 based find t h i s Court. See P a r d u e v . P o t t e r , 632 So. 2 d 4 7 0 , 473 ( A l a . 1994) ("Issues not argued i n the appellant's brief are waived."). However, even i f t h e s e i s s u e s were p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t , J e n k i n s i n v i t e d any e r r o r i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s r u l i n g by e r r o n e o u s l y a s s e r t i n g i n h i s m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t w o u l d l o s e j u r i s d i c t i o n on D e c e m b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 . See E x p a r t e W o r l e y , [Ms. 1 0 9 0 6 3 1 , S e p t . 1 0 , 2 0 1 0 ] So. 3 d , ( A l a . 2010) . 28 CR-08-0490 conclusively outcome right of that the t r i a l the t r i a l or court's error d i d not affect the otherwise (citations of the defendant.") prejudice a substantial and q u o t a t i o n s omitted). Because Jenkins t i m e l y f i l e d h i s motion t o r e c o n s i d e r and notice in of appeal and because the pleadings order filed after d i s m i s s i n g the Rule o r d e r was h a r m l e s s . Jenkins i s not e n t i t l e d the c i r c u i t any d e l a y Rule contained court signed i t s would have 32 p e t i t i o n outcome o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , the none o f t h e arguments altered the i n notifying Jenkins of 4 5 , A l a . R. A p p . P. t o any r e l i e f based Therefore, on t h i s issue. III. Jenkins determined to Rule the next that h i s Rule 32.2(c), time argues 32 p e t i t i o n limitation contained or based that the Alabama with respect when i t decided P. court on a new Supreme t o when First, i n Rule Jenkins 32.2(c), Ex p a r t e pursuant argues A l a . R. that Crim. f i l e d pursuant to P., b a s e d on a "new g r o u n d " f o r rule of law. Court juror erroneously was t i m e - b a r r e d to a successive petition 3 2 . 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C r i m . relief the c i r c u i t A l a . R. C r i m . P., d o e s n o t a p p l y Rule that "changed misconduct Burgess, 29 Jenkins then asserts the l a w i n Alabama claims may 21 S o . 3 d 746 be raised" (Ala. 2008). CR-08-0490 (Jenkins's brief, a t 34.) According based h i s juror-misconduct 32 relief Burgess that and the c l a i m on t h e "new Supreme because he Court filed within s i x months of opinion i n Ex p a r t e Burgess, Rule 32.2(c), Alternatively, contained was the on Again, the Court release had e x p i r e d ; Court of i t s does bar not P., relief. limitation does apply, he because h i s juror-misconduct law" e s t a b l i s h e d that created after petition contained i n Crim. asserts c l a i m s may was n o t c r e a t e d u n t i l This 32 parte limitation P., A l a . R. "new Jenkins Supreme juror-misconduct tolling. Crim. he f o r Rule i n Ex Rule Court's the time to equitable t o l l i n g Alabama petition R. Supreme 32.2(c), based Burgess. the ground" established h i s second because J e n k i n s argues t h a t even i f the time i n Rule was e n t i t l e d claim Ala. to Jenkins, a i n Ex i n Ex p a r t e new Burgess, law governing be a s s e r t e d a n d t h a t t h i s the time t h e r e f o r e , he limitation parte when new l a w on h i s R u l e i s entitled 32 to equitable disagrees. E a c h o f J e n k i n s ' s a r g u m e n t s r e g a r d i n g why h i s p e t i t i o n i s not Ala. barred by t h e time limitation R. Crim. P., Supreme Court established a Rule relief 32 i s based i n Ex parte on contained the premise "new law" or a Burgess. 30 i n Rule 32.2(c), that the Alabama "new ground" f o r Contrary to Jenkins's CR-08-0490 assertions, law the Alabama Supreme i n Ex p a r t e B u r g e s s ; misapplied Supreme the existing Court decision misconduct 32.2(a)(3) parte S o . 2 d 763 (Ala. Ex claim and that was 851 S o . 2 d 606 Pierce, juror-misconduct constitutional claim P., not would 32.2(a)(3) and preponderance Alabama whether that barred of pursuant procedurally (a)(5), i f the the evidence 890 Court could to Rule be 805 So. 2d 1068 established as A l a . R. pursuant petitioner the Rule w i t h Ex raised 32.1(a), barred "that to 21 S o . 3 d a t 7 5 0 . Supreme claim juror- Ex p a r t e Dobyne, Ex p a r t e B u r g e s s , pursuant be Burgess's conflict[ed] ( A l a . 2000), the Alabama had the and DeBruce v. S t a t e , 2003)." new "to determine review holding a Court this Burgess, ( a ) ( 5 ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P.,] a and parte procedurally ( A l a . 2001), parte I n Ex Court, d i d not e s t a b l i s h i t held that granted c e r t i o r a r i C r i m . App. In instead, law. [of t h i s Pierce, Court Crim. to proved a Rule by i n f o r m a t i o n was a not known, and c o u l d n o t r e a s o n a b l y have b e e n d i s c o v e r e d , a t trial or o r on i n time to raise the issue i n a motion 2d a t 616-17. The appeal." 851 So. in was reaffirmed 768 Pierce ( A l a . 2001), Crim. App. and i n Ex DeBruce v. 2003). 31 f o r new Supreme parte State, Court's holding Dobyne, 890 trial So. 805 2d So.2d 763, 1068 ( A l a . CR-08-0490 In this Ex p a r t e Court's Rule 32 failed Burgess, affirmance petition to Burgess Burgess information alleged Supreme Court that alleged during that voir jurors dire. the juror-misconduct alleged juror motion o r a new misconduct trial i n time o r on a p p e a l , " c l a i m s were p r o c e d u r a l l y b a r r e d but were not, r a i s e d at t r i a l Burgess, Alabama that 21 So. Supreme this 3d at Court Court claim Dobyne, So. must establish Rule 32.2(a)(3) t h e A l a b a m a Supreme 2d 606, held procedural R. and Crim. that bars P., Pierce, 763, a relying Rule contained A l a . R. 32 " t h a t he c o u l d n o t h a v e 32.2(a)(3) shows reasonably 32 that that h i s been, parte original) . The decision, holding the 606, standard and Ex 32 parte petitioner bars contained P. Specifically, on E x p a r t e petitioner i n Rule i f that petitioner Crim. in a Ex a Rule the procedural (a)(5), Court, what 2d held appeal. applied So. not discovered c o u l d have in Court's 851 regarding t o overcome and this erroneously i n Ex p a r t e 2d (emphasis was the claims Court because they 754 had this a n d on d i r e c t reversed established 805 to raise had Although known t o h i m a n d " t h a t he c o u l d n o t h a v e r e a s o n a b l y the reviewed o f t h e summary d i s m i s s a l o f B u r g e s s ' s i n which disclose had the Alabama P i e r c e , 851 can overcome and he was discovered in So. the (a)(5), A l a . unaware of the a l l e g e d CR-08-0490 juror misconduct o r on i n time new trial See a l s o Ex p a r t e misconduct] that the have been in parte or 9 was discovered, f o r new Burgess. 1 0 Ex ground the parte So. at not or as J e n k i n s f o r Rule Instead, 616 i n a motion 21 long as and could to appeal."). argues, 32 relief i t determined So. 3d he or at ("Pierce's i n time or on at as known, trial claims Burgess, 2d cognizable trial d i d not, a new raise P i e r c e , 851 i n f o r m a t i o n was a motion law appeal." claim Supreme C o u r t of to 754. [juror- established not raise reasonably the issue Accordingly, establish a new when i t d e c i d e d that a this Court the rule Ex had T h i s C o u r t n o t e s t h a t J e n k i n s , d u r i n g h i s f i r s t R u l e 32 p r o c e e d i n g , f a i l e d t o p r o v e by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e of t h e e v i d e n c e " t h a t the i n f o r m a t i o n [ r e l a t i n g to h i s j u r o r - m i s c o n d u c t claim] was n o t k n o w n , a n d c o u l d n o t r e a s o n a b l y h a v e b e e n d i s c o v e r e d , at t r i a l or i n t i m e t o r a i s e t h e i s s u e i n a m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l o r on a p p e a l , " Ex p a r t e P i e r c e , 851 So. 2d a t 6 1 6 - 1 7 , b e c a u s e J e n k i n s f a i l e d t o e l i c i t any t e s t i m o n y from trial c o u n s e l i n d i c a t i n g t h a t c o u n s e l was unaware of the c l a i m . B e c a u s e J e n k i n s f a i l e d t o meet h i s b u r d e n t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e c l a i m was u n k n o w n , t h i s C o u r t c o r r e c t l y a p p l i e d Ex p a r t e P i e r c e , 851 So. 2d a t 6 1 6 - 1 7 , a n d h e l d t h a t t h e c l a i m was p r o c e d u r a l l y b a r r e d b e c a u s e i t c o u l d h a v e b e e n , b u t was not, r a i s e d a t t r i a l o r on d i r e c t a p p e a l . J e n k i n s v. S t a t e , 972 So. 2 d a t 1 6 8 . 9 J e n k i n s c i t e s K i n g v . S t a t e , 689 So. 2d 931 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , R i c e v . S t a t e , 682 So. 2 d 485 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 9 9 6 ) , a n d M i t c h e l l v . S t a t e , 547 So. 2 d 1194 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 9 8 9 ) , i n s u p p o r t o f h i s p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t R u l e 32 c l a i m s b a s e d on n e w l y d e c i d e d c a s e s a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o t h e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P. Unlike Jenkins's n o n j u r i s d i c t i o n a l c l a i m , the p e t i t i o n e r s i n each of these 1 0 33 CR-08-0490 erroneously Pierce, applied 851 So. 2d the at standard established in Ex parte 616. B e c a u s e t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h law or a new ground f o r Rule 32 relief J e n k i n s ' s a s s e r t i o n that the r e l e a s e juror-misconduct limitation without did in claim contained merit. Ex parte tolling Eberlin, that no 626 v. (holding limitation that 32.2(c), Jenkins 2d for applies equitable Jenkins filed expired, this pursuant 891 that to Rule So. 2d to tolling h i s Rule circuit 32.7(d), 398, case. (N.D. 420 of Burgess, Crim. time P., Supreme Court 32 to is relief equitable See Fitts v. Ohio 2009) [the petitioner's] ... 32 must ("Given fail."). petition correctly A l a . R. before dismissed Crim. (Ala. Crim. j u r o r - m i s c o n d u c t c l a i m s are the f o r Rule entitled that 733 R. Alabama ground not of 724, Ala. the is release exists unless State, application l a w o r a new the plea petition Rule Supp. rule the time Wood F. new Therefore, the on [his] case, a new Burgess, based the L i k e w i s e , because not e s t a b l i s h parte new of t h a t case exempted h i s from in i n Ex a App. P. See 2003) nonjurisdictional); c a s e s r a i s e d j u r i s d i c t i o n a l c l a i m s t h a t , by t h e i r n a t u r e , a r e not s u b j e c t to the time l i m i t a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n Rule 3 2 . 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P. T h e r e f o r e , t h e s e c a s e s do n o t s u p p o r t h i s argument. 34 CR-08-0490 Bowen v. State, (holding subject Crim. App. to that to 2006) Crim. So. 2d 310, 312 nonjurisdictional, (Ala. Crim. constitutional the p r o c e d u r a l bars set forth Tucker P.); the 899 So. 2d v. (holding time State, that limitation 956 i n Rule 1170, nonjurisdictional contained in Rule 1171 App. 2004) claims 32, Ala. 3 2 . 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. Crim. P., c l a i m s are s u b j e c t 32.2(c), Ala. provides: "Subject to the f u r t h e r p r o v i s i o n s h e r e i n a f t e r set out i n t h i s s e c t i o n , the c o u r t s h a l l not e n t e r t a i n any p e t i t i o n f o r r e l i e f f r o m a c o n v i c t i o n o r s e n t e n c e on t h e g r o u n d s s p e c i f i e d i n R u l e 3 2 . 1 ( a ) a n d ( f ) , u n l e s s the p e t i t i o n i s f i l e d : (1) I n t h e c a s e o f a c o n v i c t i o n appealed to the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals, within one (1) year after the i s s u a n c e of the certificate o f judgment by t h e C o u r t o f Criminal A p p e a l s u n d e r R u l e 4 1 , A l a . R . A p p . P . ; o r (2) i n t h e case of a c o n v i c t i o n not appealed to the Court of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s , w i t h i n one (1) y e a r a f t e r t h e t i m e f o r f i l i n g an a p p e a l l a p s e s ; p r o v i d e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t the time f o r f i l i n g a p e t i t i o n under Rule 32.1(f) to s e e k an o u t - o f - t i m e a p p e a l f r o m t h e d i s m i s s a l or denial of a p e t i t i o n previously filed under any p r o v i s i o n o f R u l e 32.1 s h a l l be s i x (6) m o n t h s f r o m the date the p e t i t i o n e r d i s c o v e r s the d i s m i s s a l or denial, irrespective of the one-year deadlines s p e c i f i e d i n t h e p r e c e d i n g s u b p a r t s (1) a n d (2) o f this sentence; and provided further that the i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g p r o v i s o s h a l l not extend e i t h e r o f t h o s e o n e - y e a r d e a d l i n e s a s t h e y may a p p l y t o t h e previously filed petition. The court shall not e n t e r t a i n a p e t i t i o n b a s e d on t h e g r o u n d s s p e c i f i e d i n Rule 32.1(e) u n l e s s the p e t i t i o n i s f i l e d w i t h i n the a p p l i c a b l e one-year p e r i o d s p e c i f i e d i n the f i r s t s e n t e n c e o f t h i s s e c t i o n , o r w i t h i n s i x (6) m o n t h s 35 R. (Ala. Crim. P.). Rule are R. CR-08-0490 a f t e r the d i s c o v e r y of the newly d i s c o v e r e d m a t e r i a l f a c t s , whichever i s l a t e r ; p r o v i d e d , however, t h a t t h e o n e - y e a r p e r i o d d u r i n g w h i c h a p e t i t i o n may be b r o u g h t s h a l l i n no c a s e be d e e m e d t o h a v e b e g u n t o run b e f o r e the e f f e c t i v e date of the p r e c u r s o r of t h i s r u l e , i . e . , A p r i l 1, 1 9 8 7 . " The Alabama affirming of on this 28, 1993. until 28, Court in issued Rule had pursuant court 1, Jenkins limitation For 1993, Ex this Court's is file expired, his Rule after R. 32 Crim. P., petition 3 2 . 7 ( d ) , A l a . R. the Crim. 2d on 32 judgment October petition had expired. after P. 1054, limitation the c i r c u i t c o u r t c o r r e c t l y foregoing reasons, sentences time Ala. Rule judgment the judgment So. his current well 32.2(c), filed to Rule the 2008, and p a r t e J e n k i n s , 627 i t s c e r t i f i c a t e of J e n k i n s d i d not contained it May October Because affirmed Jenkins's capital-murder convictions death and Supreme C o u r t the time dismissed 11 of the circuit affirmed. AFFIRMED. Wise, P.J., and Welch, Kellum, and Main, J J . , concur. Because this Court has affirmed the dismissal of J e n k i n s ' s p e t i t i o n b a s e d o n R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., i t w i l l not d i s c u s s the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s a l t e r n a t i v e reasons f o r d i s m i s s i n g the p e t i t i o n . 1 1 36

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.