Mark Allen Jenkins v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/26/2011 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 from S t . C l a i r C i r c u i t (CC-89-68.61) Court On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g WINDOM, This and Judge. Court's opinion the following opinion o f December 17, 2010, i s w i t h d r a w n , i ss u b s t i t u t e d therefor. CR-08-0490 Mark A l l e n dismissal pursuant his appeals of h i s p e t i t i o n to Rule March capital Jenkins 1991 the c i r c u i t court's f o r postconviction 3 2 , A l a . R. convictions Crim. P., f o r two relief i n which counts summary filed he a t t a c k e d o f murder made b e c a u s e t h e m u r d e r was c o m m i t t e d d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f a r o b b e r y and a k i d n a p p i n g , 40(a)(1), A l a . Code recommended t h a t s e e §§ 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 2 ) 1975. By a vote 10-2, t h e circuit c o u r t a c c e p t e d t h e j u r y ' s recommendation and sentenced Jenkins death On f o rh i s capital-murder convictions. February convictions 1034 and Court death (Ala. 28, 1992, and s e n t e n c e . ( A l a . Crim. Supreme affirmed On 1 this March On May Jenkins's See Ex parte affirmed 5 1 1 U.S. capital-murder Jenkins, f o ra writ 1012 Jenkins's 627 S o . 2 d 28, 1993, t h e Alabama 627 28, 1994, t h e U n i t e d Court denied Jenkins's p e t i t i o n v. Alabama, Court See J e n k i n s v . S t a t e , App. 1992). sentence. 1993). Jenkins t o death. jury The to J e n k i n s be s e n t e n c e d of and 13A-5- convictions S o . 2 d 1054 States Supreme of c e r t i o r a r i . See (1994). This Court's decision on d i r e c t appeal provides a d e t a i l e d account of the f a c t s of Jenkins's crime. Jenkins, 627 S o . 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 2 CR-08-0490 On first May Rule 26, 1995, 32 p e t i t i o n Jenkins, through i n the St. C l a i r he r a i s e d n u m e r o u s c l a i m s for relief. Jenkins to h i s Rule filed alleged, trial among because that C. a n amendment other J u r o r L.V. h e r nephew at On conducted the f i r s t Rule hearing until first that failed and h i s w i f e 257-59.) amended things, counsel, Circuit Court On N o v e m b e r 2 32 p e t i t i o n he was to disclose during 10, 1996, the a later and p o s t p o n e d date. On of the hearing, amended Rule 32 the State petition i n which barred pursuant to Rules 32.2(a)(3) i t asserted, and voir new dire Jenkins's t h e two to 32 court of the 18, 1997, a f t e r a response things, that Jenkins's juror-misconduct to a the remainder January filed 26, 1996, circuit day o f t h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g b u t b e f o r e days i n which ( 1 s t R. 3 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 32 p e t i t i o n his i n w h i c h he entitled had been murdered. December filed 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. This Court has taken judicial notice of a l l of i t s records r e l a t i n g to Jenkins's previous proceedings, i n c l u d i n g , 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 ) . 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 3 CR-08-0490 P., because o r on the direct circuit hearing, of his order appeal. court during two On 32 i t could which December 31, 1997, court procedurally Crim. 32 determined, was on not, presented P., and the trial 21, 1997, evidentiary testimony of one 5 the circuit C. at in nephew and barred of the court contained 267-346.) relevant pursuant his wife to Rules because t h i s 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 her r a i s e d at J a n u a r y 20 remainder on t h e c l a i m s ( 1 s t R. dire that R. Jenkins attorneys. claim contending Ala. the trial petition. voir Thereafter, 4 conducted denying r e l i e f circuit have been, but had i t s order, that during been murdered and the Jenkins's to d i s c l o s e 32.2(a)(3) Rule was (a)(5), c l a i m c o u l d have been, but was In h i s b r i e f to t h i s Court, Jenkins asserts that: "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 ] a m e n d e d p e t i t i o n 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 h e a r i n g . 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 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. 4 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 not, raised 275, 282.) On February court's State, this at t r i a l denial 27, 2004, 972 S o . 2 d 111 Court raised this held Jenkins's to Rule and d i d not r e l a t e back original petition. 120-21. Id. at Specifically, Court reversed claim t o any c l a i m this was P., b e c a u s e i t to the o r i g i n a l On circuit See J e n k i n s v . 3 2 . 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. C r i m . petition 32 C. a t the juror-misconduct amendment Supreme affirmed App. 2004). i n an u n t i m e l y Alabama ( 1 s t R. 32 p e t i t i o n . (Ala. Crim. that appeal. Court of Jenkins's Rule barred pursuant was o r on d i r e c t April Court's Rule raised 8, 32 i n the 2005, the holding that 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 t i m e - b a r r e d a n d r e m a n d e d the cause t o t h i s Jenkins, Court f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. 972 S o . 2 d 159 ( A l a . 2005). On November circuit court's order relating to juror misconduct. 2d 165 court's 23, ( A l a . Crim. decision, 2005, this denying App. this See Ex p a r t e Court relief again on affirmed Jenkins's See J e n k i n s v . S t a t e , 2005). Court In noted affirming that the Jenkins the claim 972 S o . 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 h i s juror-misconduct claim 5 was n o t known and c o u l d n o t CR-08-0490 have been appeal. discovered in I d . a t 167-68. time to raise Specifically, i t at this trial Court or on explained: "Jenkins submitted 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 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 filing his petition 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 After noting indicating have raised Court, applying parte P i e r c e , 851 was not, 2d whether the the procedurally 168. Alabama counsel Supreme because Ex parte Court's i t could or on appeal contained ... i n Rule of thus earlier, this that in been, but So. 32.2(a), to overcome So. at 614 2d (5) w o u l d p r e c l u d e A l a . R. m u s t ] show t h a t h i s c l a i m c o u l d 6 the Crim. P., procedural the was 972 c l a i m i f i t c o u l d have been r a i s e d a t [and Ex the c l a i m v. S t a t e , 851 any and holding have 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] claim Pierce, to present knew ( A l a . 2000), held o r on a p p e a l . also failed juror-misconduct barred See Jenkins trial S o . 2 d 606 r a i s e d at t r i a l at that [a trial bars petitioner not have been r a i s e d a t trial CR-08-0490 or on d i r e c t Court of appeal"). May 18, 2007, e n t e r e d an o r d e r d e n y i n g the Alabama Jenkins's petition Supreme for a writ certiorari. On May 15, 2008, petition for writ District Court Jenkins filed 746 summary raised the habeas issued procedurally Crim. of Burgess's Court that the barred pursuant P., because o r on (a)(5) ("A p e t i t i o n e r w i l l any ground: not r a i s e d at t r i a l , or ... of Rule of Alabama. After the Alabama Supreme circuit petition whether I d . See So. Court court's i n which he Specifically, this 32.2(a)(3) i t c o u l d have 21 been, Court had claim was and (a)(5), b u t was not, Rule 3 2 . 2 ( a ) (3) and n o t be g i v e n r e l i e f ... under [ R u l e 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 5) the 32 2254 States juror-misconduct to Rules appeal. § United I d . a t 751. reviewed Burgess's at t r i a l 32.1(b); in the Alabama affirmance raised Rule U.S.C. i n Ex p a r t e B u r g e s s , In Burgess, Supreme held upon 28 District a juror-misconduct claim. R. a corpus i t sdecision Court's dismissal properly based filed f o r the Northern this 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 On for relief [ w ] h i c h c o u l d have 7 been arises under b u t was not CR-08-0490 raised Rule on a p p e a l , unless the ground for relief arises under 32.1(b)."). In Ex p a r t e this Court's (Ala. Crim. Pierce, Burgess, decision App. 851 So. the Alabama i n S t a t e v. 1992 ) , 2d and 606 Supreme Freeman, i t s own Court 605 So. decision ( A l a . 2000), and applied 2d i n Ex 1258 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 claim disclose relating information during voir to a juror's dire procedural bars contained i n Rules 32.2(a)(3) R. Crim. P., the and ( a ) ( 5 ) , A l a . the i n f o r m a t i o n 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 been for new 751 at t r i a l trial alleged The Pierce, 851 Alabama Supreme Court was claim at t r i a l 32 appeal. t h a t i t was u n r e a s o n a b l e to blindly petition not d i s c o v e r e d u n t i l o r on investigate the issue Ex p a r t e B u r g e s s , parte i n h i s Rule claim "establishe[s] or i n time to r a i s e o r on a p p e a l . " ( q u o t i n g Ex added) ) . petitioner overcome that discovered, i f that may failure So. 2d noted that i t was Id. the The 8 21 S o . 3 d a t 616 that (emphasis Burgess had juror-misconduct too late to require t r i a l possible at i n a motion Court to raise further or appellate the noted counsel juror-misconduct claims and CR-08-0490 that Burgess to suspect had a l l e g e d i n h i s p e t i t i o n any juror had unaware of the juror-misconduct claim u n t i l the claim indicating in at t r i a l that [alleged held that dismissal On court t h e Alabama of Burgess's October to stay 2, Rule 2008, h i s habeas another Rule claim. Specifically, to Supreme 32 and ( a ) ( 5 ) . Court moved facts 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 reasserting him district to file h i s juror-misconduct a stay i n federal court h i s juror-misconduct claim pursuant to the Alabama Supreme C o u r t ' s So. ( A l a . 2008). 746 the Alabama Jenkins sought was him or h i s counsel t o proceedings petition a l l o w him t o pursue 3d and had a l l e g e d 32 p e t i t i o n . Jenkins Because 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) reason 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 754-55. "nothing occurred during the t r i a l the record that the facts Id. at Burgess raise alleged misconduct. t h a t he h a d no On decision November 9 i n Ex p a r t e B u r g e s s , 12, 2008, the 21 federal CR-08-0490 district court granted Jenkins's motion to filed stay a his habeas proceedings. On October 1, 2008, petition i n w h i c h he disclose during been murdered right to a C. at On trial. Ala. In ... the on October motion to dismiss was that before conducted" 6.) dire years fair "incorporate[d] hearing re-alleged that voir 20 Jenkins 31, her his Rule of Crim. hearing, merit. c l a i m was argued, State pursuant November 25, dismissing 2008, further to the Jenkins's relief on violated his State filed the based on (2d R. an answer 3 2 . 2 ( b ) and the asserted Rule and that without 32.7(d), circuit court petition as merits. 10 previous claim Ala. issued R. and 32.2(c), Rule 32 without Jenkins's i t should Crim. P. a detailed procedurally 32 petition was because merit, Jenkins evidentiary claim. juror-misconduct procedurally barred dismissed denying and Jenkins's The had i n which i t asserted that Jenkins's P., that wife [previous] p r o c e d u r a l l y barred pursuant to Rules R. to petition, juror-misconduct 2008, the 32 his trial 32 the and Rule failure L.V.'s nephew Jenkins's record his Juror second barred be On order and CR-08-0490 I. Initially, "[w]hen a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , reviewing a circuit this Court applies standard." S h o u l d i s v. App. ( q u o t i n g Whitman 2008) (Ala. Crim. 191 App. 2004), So. 2d are u n d i s p u t e d and de of law, an (citing 2001) Ex State Rule proceedings, 32 sentence." App. 2005) Finally, P.,] which "[t]he apply with the citations v. (internal death and 903 761 So. plain even p e n a l t y has So. So. error 962 154 State, 885 "when t h e been quotations omitted). proceeding (Ala. 2d 1201, 1203 (Ala. does not involves 2d 272, of Rule pure 1098 rule and 32 facts 1097, 277 32[.2, death omitted). A l a . R. Id. to (Ala. Crim. including imposed." apply the quotations to a l l cases, 11 152, 2d case So. citations force 2d McGahee v. However, 792 i f the State, (Ala. Crim. court i s presented with 690 procedural bars equal State, 2003)). Hill, "[t]he Burgess 3d 7 5 3 , i n turn White, v. Further, So. of abuse-of-discretion c o u r t ' s review i n a Rule parte 1996)). v. appellate that novo." 38 citing ( A l a . C r i m . App. questions is State, an court's denial Crim. those in (internal CR-08-0490 II. On a p p e a l , violated his Specifically, his right findings Jenkins right first to Jenkins due opportunity to process b y : A) and c o n c l u s i o n s file a response these arguments three violated independent denying to the State's to t i m e l y serve are without court reasons. court t o make o f l a w ; B) 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, the c i r c u i t for failing 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 order that asserts that the c i r c u i t t o due p r o c e s s of fact alleges 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 brief, a t 15-21). the c i r c u i t be remanded argument that findings of fact the circuit court the record failed Specifically, t o make court failed and c o n c l u s i o n s could Rule 12 Jenkins independent t o make reviewed cause To s u p p o r t h i s of law, Jenkins n o t have of the previous proposed of law; therefore, t h i s f o r further proceedings. 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 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 should court independent asserts the t r i a l 32 p r o c e e d i n g , that record, the pleadings CR-08-0490 in the 24-page proposed i n the s h o r t time between r e c e i v i n g the S t a t e ' s order second proposed order and court "could circuit seeing As court erroneously to with its h i s c l a i m because signed first the 24-page time." Jenkins's i s unsupported the " i t is likely order argument by circuit obligation within (Jenkins's brief, is the record Jenkins that argues the he argues that the circuit State's proposed order v i o l a t e d findings Jenkins, at that 9, based and, to hours of 16). on thus, of circuit adopted the S t a t e ' s proposed order denying Specifically, at complied the an is merit. Initially, the have below, that and According evaluate" discussed assumption proceedings, i t . not i t f o r the without 32 adopting independently the Rule fact and conclusions of court's his right law." to court relief. adoption "independent (Jenkins's brief, 15.) "Alabama Courts have repeatedly upheld the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s adoption of proposed orders d r a f t e d by t h e S t a t e i n p o s t c o n v i c t i o n c a s e s . For example, i n H y d e v . S t a t e , 950 So. 2 d 344 ( A l a . Crim. App. 2 0 0 6 ) , we s t a t e d : "'Hyde c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t erred i n adopting the State's proposed order. S p e c i f i c a l l y , he a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e a r e numerous f a c t u a l and l e g a l e r r o r s i n 13 of CR-08-0490 the o r d e r t h a t i n d i c a t e t h a t the o r d e r does n o t r e p r e s e n t t h e c o u r t ' s own independent j u d g m e n t , b u t shows a w h o l e s a l e a d o p t i o n o f the State's proposed order without c o n s i d e r a t i o n of h i s c l a i m s . However, t h i s C o u r t has r e p e a t e d l y u p h e l d t h e p r a c t i c e o f adopting t h e S t a t e ' s p r o p o s e d o r d e r when denying a Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief. See, e.g., C o r a l v. S t a t e , 90 0 So. 2d 1 2 7 4 , 1288 (Ala. Crim. A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e J e n k i n s , 972 So. 2d 159 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , and the cases c i t e d 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 even when a trial court adopts verbatim a party's proposed order, the f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law a r e t h o s e of t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d t h e y may be reversed only i f they are clearly erroneous." M c G a h e e v . S t a t e , 885 So. 2 d 1 9 1 , 229-30 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003).' "950 So. 2d at 371. "Thus, e v e n when a c i r c u i t court adopts a p r o p o s e d o r d e r i n i t s e n t i r e t y , the p e t i t i o n e r must show t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t a n d c o n c l u s i o n s of law i n t h a t o r d e r are ' c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s ' b e f o r e an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l r e v e r s e t h e o r d e r s o l e l y on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e o r d e r was s u b m i t t e d b y t h e S t a t e . " Hodges v. , State, (Ala. Crim. I n Ex p a r t e Alabama where [Ms. party's] trial App. I n g r a m , 51 Supreme C o u r t a CR-04-1226, March proposed order does as 2007] So. 3d 2007). So. 3d reaffirmed court 23, in 1119, "the fact i t s own, 14 1122 general adopt deference (Ala. 2010), rule the ... the that, [prevailing i s owed t o that CR-08-0490 order in court." the same The measure Court as any went to state case, [ i t c o u l d not] rule' was conclude applicable" indisputably false t h e j u d g e who on that because statements. trial presided that over "the the the observations of confidence that conclusions of independent judgment findings and (emphasis in that Court the law the and the judge had Court then held statements knowledge' of of that ... of 15 the of order the Id. order Rule and any and judge's reflects of the judge, Ingram's fact trial judge." Because those undermines findings product Id. he the of 'personal the dismissal contained Specifically, another Supreme nature that original). 'general order stated that fact, court's the c o n c l u s i o n s were not reversed order trial unusual above-stated capital-murder t r i a l trial are " [ i ] n this adopted The judge's conclusions the in Id. Ingram's the and had p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e o f erroneous trial of I d . at 1123-24. when, trial. patently regarding the signed the S t a t e ' s proposed proceedings order that the had p r e s i d e d o v e r Ingram's t r i a l the other at the 1125 established the 32 Supreme petition. CR-08-0490 Later, So. held 3d that order i n Ex p a r t e , [Ms. ( A l a . 2011), the c i r c u i t the Scott, State's court answer 1091275, erred i n adopting to Rule a 32 the with that i t constitutes error p r e v a i l i n g party's as i t s petition. After Ingram, the Court for a circuit court to adopt zeal answer that is never Id. to nature, violates the c i r c u i t [and] because an prepared with the Because adversarial answer and verbatim " i s infected State's that Court a n s w e r b e c a u s e an a n s w e r impartiality." ... 2011] adversarial ... pleading with 18, Supreme the Alabama r e a f f i r m i n g i t s e a r l i e r d e c i s i o n i n Ex p a r t e held March a party's zeal," [a] R u l e the 32 p e t i t i o n [the Court's] court's impartial findings order and holding must] as of i t s order, i n Ex a of " i s infected adoption reflect conclusions pretense answer "verbatim is parte the the by i t s Ingram[, independent of the t r i a l court." court's in this Id. U n l i k e Ex p a r t e case does erroneous." not Ingram, the c i r c u i t contain statements 51 S o . 3d a t 1 1 2 5 . 16 Also, that order are "patently u n l i k e Ex p a r t e Scott, CR-08-0490 the circuit opposed to So. court an 3d purports answer at to judgment. circuit adopted Further, constitute court stated answer, evidence Jenkins's appeal, these first prior facts, where a to t h i s Court trial court does p a r t y ' s ] proposed order order in court," error the Ex same parte resulted State's proposed at the petition, holds as Ingram, from the court's denying petition, and fact as any So. 3d the circuit deference other order relief, the reviewed and the record the State's on 1122, court's on direct Based ... on that, [prevailing i s owed t o order 6 independent petition. adopt at as evidentiary hearing current i t s own, 51 court's that "the general rule in measure 32 order adversarial zeal." "thoroughly Rule d i s m i s s i n g the proposed circuit order i t had presented 32 the i t s current Rule ... circuit in that Jenkins's the the instance, considered" State's "infected with . For the of the that trial a p p l i e s , and adoption of no the order. I n Ex p a r t e S c o t t , t h e C o u r t e m p h a s i z e d t h a t i t d i d " n o t e v e n h a v e t h e b e n e f i t o f an o r d e r p r o p o s e d o r ' p r e p a r e d ' b y a p a r t y ; r a t h e r t h e o r d e r [was] a j u d i c i a l i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f a party's pleading Ex p a r t e S c o t t , [Ms. 1 0 9 1 2 7 5 , M a r c h 18, 2 0 1 1 ] So. 3d a t . 6 17 CR-08-0490 Moreover, even State's proposed beyond i fthe c i r c u i t court erred order, that error, a reasonable doubt. on i t s face, arguments limitation contained i n Rule Ala. R. C r i m . (Ala. Crim. J e n k i n s ' s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n erroneous a matter why lacks 2003) (holding reason that harmless 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 that a trial court's error alternative holding); (Fed. 448 C i r . 2004) (Ga. App. (same); 1977 ) Because believes merit. the time P., does See R u l e 45, 897 S o . 2 d 1 1 6 1 , 1 1 8 5 the when circuit t h e r e was court's a valid court's action); United ( 7 t h C i r . 2009) (holding i s harmless when i t had a Barton (holding v. Gammell, valid that an 238 S . E . 2 d 4 4 5 , erroneous finding is c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i s s u p p o r t e d by o t h e r Jenkins's Rule 32 p e t i t i o n was on i t s f a c e t i m e - b a r r e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., if of S h e d d e n v . P r i n c i p i , 381 F . 3 d 1 1 6 3 , 1168 h a r m l e s s when t h e t r i a l grounds). he of law, each 3 2 . 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. C r i m . 32 p e t i t i o n d e t e r m i n a t i o n was alternative was P.; c f . P e r a i t a v . S t a t e , App. harmless As regarding apply to h i s Rule be 4 5 , A l a . R. A p p . P. a n d , as Jenkins's not i f any, would See R u l e d i s c u s s e d i n more d e t a i l b e l o w , time-barred i n adopting the any, i n t h e a d o p t i o n of the State's proposed 18 error, order was CR-08-0490 harmless. this Therefore, argument Jenkins's independent because that findings i t lacked pleadings, and order i s based 24-page the on d u r i n g the the t o any the Jenkins filed his Rule its answer October 31, petition on denying relief elapsed between circuit court assertion, the days relief order court a l l the i n the on and motion 2008. The its of the filed by the review law records, time the court the 1, 2008. 2008. signed A l m o s t two petition time to for 32 The Jenkins's court Contrary was petition. dismiss circuit of of f i l e d h i s Rule Jenkins's plenty not short circuit October to order. did adopting and dismissed on court conclusions review that petition provided independently circuit 32 filing to an to on N o v e m b e r 2 5 , court In or proposed circuit issuing 55 time circuit 55 d a y s b e t w e e n when J e n k i n s when filed the facts assumption and order entitled State's proposed order petition State of sufficient the between r e c e i v i n g idle i s not issue. Next, make Jenkins the the records and the argument, Jenkins asserts its months and the Jenkins's circuit pleadings parties. alternative court "reached clearly 19 erroneous that the conclusions"; CR-08-0490 therefore, i t erred (Jenkins's brief, the i n adopting a t 20.) c i r c u i t court's the State's Specifically, order erroneously proposed Jenkins order. asserts that stated: " [ T ] h i s Court c r e d i t s [L.V.'s] testimony that she d i d n o t 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 reasonable to believe that she would not have m e n t i o n e d h i s d e a t h 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 'close 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. clearly to 32 C. 72.) According to Jenkins, this statement 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 was close her s i s t e r . The c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s the L.V. finding a p p e a r s t o h a v e b e e n b a s e d on f o l l o w i n g exchange between Jenkins's during Jenkins's [your first "Q: Was nephew] "A: Yeah, sure. "Q: A r e you c l o s e "A: Y e s , I'm I have. "Q: Does "A: About I guess. close she l i v e three Rule counsel 32 hearing: murdered i n March I t has been a l o n g t o your sister, o f 1971? time. close t o you? I guess. 20 I'm n o t Pauline? t o h e r . She a n d o n e m o r e miles, and i sa l l Juror CR-08-0490 "Q: Do y o u often? "A: I see h e r help take "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 c o n t a c t w i t h her? "A: No, because I worked then. much o f e a c h o t h e r as we do "Q: You were "A: Yes, of ( 1 s t R. 32 v e n i r e was the victim furtherest This R. at have an opportunity to t h r e e t i m e s a week. care of her. still see She her fairly i s o l d and d i d you We didn't now. I have see as close? course." 10-11.) L a t e r , L.V. testified t h a t when 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 of a crime, t h i n g from Court has L.V. [her] stated that mind." her ( 1 s t R. nephew 32 R. at been "was 10.) explained: "'"'[A] finding is "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 t h e 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 Co., 333 U.S. 3 6 4 , 3 9 5 , 68 S. C t . 5 2 5 , 542, 92 L. E d . 746 ( 1 9 4 8 ) .... I f the [ c i r c u i t ] c o u r t ' 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 r e c o r d viewed i n i t s e n t i r e t y , the c o u r t 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 b e e n 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 h a v e 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 t h e m c a n n o t be clearly erroneous. U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Y e l l o w Cab Co., 338 U.S. 338, 342, 70 S. C t . 1 7 7 , 179, 94 L. E d . 150 21 the the CR-08-0490 (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 60 6 (1 982 ) . " [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 ) ] . ' " 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 , ( A l a . Crim. 551 S o . 2 d 4 3 5 , 4 3 6 - 3 7 App. 2004) ( A l a . Crim. 1989). Here, Id. sister, there 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 testified that that indicated that murdered. nephew's (1st R. Further, murder 32 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 . was L.V. t e s t i f i e d voir her "was that during the f u r t h e r e s t 10.) Based on thing remember murder, from the testimony her d i d not [her] mind." indicating her s i s t e r when dire, conclusion the time Court cannot say that the her nephew circuit 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 o f t h e n e p h e w ' s m u r d e r was 22 clearly 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 this L.V. h e r nephew with dire, was s h e d i d n o t r e m e m b e r when L.V. d i d n o t h a v e much c o n t a c t 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 was voir court's a n d nephew a t erroneous. CR-08-0490 Moreover, circuit even court's determination holdings i fthis isolated would clearly Court statement not render erroneous. 0 8 9 8 , O c t . 1, 2 0 1 0 ] were to determine was inaccurate, the c i r c u i t , 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 32 r e l i e f c l e a r l y extensive and petitioner as a m a t t e r d i d not render relied on relief). Here, the [Ms. C R - 0 6 - determination that the c i r c u i t court's order that numerous ultimate of law to represent erroneous findings this ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2010) (holding that the c i r c u i t court's erroneous trial court's See S t a t e v . S m i t h , So. 3d that the because the c i r c u i t were supported by t h e grounds i n granting the circuit court relied on m u l t i p l e g r o u n d s t o d e n y J e n k i n s ' s r e q u e s t f o r r e l i e f a n d made extensive findings of fact 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 at importantly, below, and, why Ala. as and stated the above Rule 32 hearing. and d i s c u s s e d J e n k i n s ' s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n as a m a t t e r o f law, each More i n more detail was t i m e - b a r r e d o n i t s f a c e , of J e n k i n s ' s arguments r e g a r d i n g he b e l i e v e s t h e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n contained i n Rule 32.2(c), R. C r i m . P., d o e s n o t a p p l y t o h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n merit. 897 trial See R u l e So. 2d 1161, 4 5 , A l a . R. C r i m . P.; c f . P e r a i t a 1185 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2003) 23 v. lacks State, (holding that the CR-08-0490 circuit there court's was a v a l i d action); Cir. erroneous United 2009) alternative States (holding when i t h a d a v a l i d 381 F.3d 1163, determination v. Abbas, that a trial 1168 is say finding supported that order and because court's isolated error i s harmless Principi, (same); Barton v. court's this statement decision Court cannot rendered the based had s u f f i c i e n t review claim h a s n o t shown relief that to pertaining to Jenkins's and p l e a d i n g s Jenkins denying relief 660, 666-67 ( 7 t h Therefore, court the was time the c i r c u i t erroneous, court Therefore, on t h i s that clearly circuit State's proposed order. any court's court's (Ga. App. 1977) ( h o l d i n g t h a t an grounds). the c i r c u i t the records established F.3d when erroneous. all order 560 i s h a r m l e s s when t h e t r i a l the c i r c u i t Because f o r the c i r c u i t ( F e d . C i r . 2004) by other clearly harmless a l t e r n a t i v e h o l d i n g ) ; Shedden v. G a m m e l l , 238 S . E . 2 d 4 4 5 , 448 erroneous reason was erred Jenkins he court's has not i n adopting the i s not e n t i t l e d to issue. B Jenkins relief State's next contends on h i s p e t i t i o n the c i r c u i t before answer and motion considering to dismiss. 24 court erred i n denying his reply The S t a t e to the argues that CR-08-0490 Rule 32 does State's not response harmless. 32.6(a), p r o c e e d i n g under verified by clerk a that, Ala. 32.2, A l a . R. (Ala. 2007) face, the Crim. Rule P., the the relief, petition of equitable of entitle the applicable "). days to any principle petitioner limitations Rule file however, no pursuant to to provision, 3 2 . 7 ( a ) , A l a . R. a response provision Rule law the to the i n Rule 32.6(b), or any be Rule 32 Rule 897 asserts fact would of the dismissed State 30 There i s , petitioner P., i t but that tolling petition. Crim. remedy petition a l l o w s the f o r the R. in 888, A summarily P., Ala. 25 or t h a t equitable may facts the tolling. Crim. 32 3d e n t i t l e m e n t to fails basis i s t i m e - b a r r e d on i t s tolling, state So. P., any contained 32 doctrine Crim. factual p a r t e W a r d , 46 the R. including t h a t does not a s s e r t e q u i t a b l e to full ("[W]hen a R u l e by petition, attorney, with Ala. procedural bars establish "[a] filing a Ex must was that provides 32.6(b), disclose to the error any to State. See petition reply or the p e t i t i o n e r ' s to P. a i f i t did, Crim. court." overcome of i s commenced by entitlement to filing w i t h the R. rule petitioner the even agrees this the establishing necessary for the p e t i t i o n e r of requires afforded and This Court Rule the provide -- who, should have CR-08-0490 i n c l u d e d the full each of legal file a r e p l y to his factual requires the circuit dismissing courts have that, [the on State's there before a l l o w s the assertions the Furthermore, a trial court i t s face, is Rule in his Rule no 32 provision to await 32 petition in "Rule 32.7(d), or f a i l s has] State as Ala. 32 (Ala. Bishop ("Where 1992) (citing h e l d t h a t the a post-conviction relief of the to is precluded, petition petition the without be v. simple shows true, circuit State." State, trial Ex 608 reading that, So. of assuming requiring a [may] petition court may waiting for 2d 345, every for allegation without from 46 347-48 petition summarily response and p a r t e Ward, a i t i s obviously court P., to s t a t e a c l a i m , from the 897 Alabama R.Crim. a Rule a response to the p e t i t i o n at to from the such a p e t i t i o n without 3d -- that p r o p e r l y summarily dismiss So. and 32 Instead, to summarily d i s m i s s i s precluded Rule a response petition. held, Supreme C o u r t for relief response. court repeatedly Alabama basis for his request merit dismiss the or that district attorney.")). Recognizing State, Crim. [Ms. App. these principles, C R - 0 7 - 0 0 5 1 , May 2009), rejected 1, t h i s Court, 2009] Jenkins's 26 So. i n Beckworth 3d argument. , Three v. (Ala. days CR-08-0490 after the State petition circuit On and w i t h o u t court appeal, trial abused only three This before court's entry State's 347-48 for merit that other i t s discretion when days Court [,] after disagreed receiving Id. (holding that where relief of the p e t i t i o n without Similarly, filed and h e l d that err in shows the the petition response to the of the trial of i t s r e c e i p t of reading that, 608 S o . 2 d of a petition assuming every t o be t r u e , i t i s o b v i o u s l y without c o u r t may s u m m a r i l y r e q u i r i n g a response Court dismissing Moreover, even i fJ e n k i n s answer "that 32 v. S t a t e , a simple holds from the d i s t r i c t petition court prior to answer and motion t o d i s m i s s . d i d have a r i g h t and motion 27 dismiss that the c i r c u i t Jenkins's a reply to the State's the State's days See B i s h o p Id. i t s answer a Rule a 32 because "the as a r e s u l t within the c i r c u i t this petition. i t dismissed the State o f t h e judgment response." petition not from Rule a reply, the things, the State [n]o e r r o r occurred or i s precluded, attorney). to Beckworth's among postconviction allegation did argued, i t receives ... at dismissed to f i l e c o u r t may p r o p e r l y s u m m a r i l y d i s m i s s petition the to Beckworth's a l l o w i n g Beckworth Beckworth Id. even i t s response summarily court petition trial filed to dismiss, to f i l e a reply any e r r o r t h e CR-08-0490 circuit court committed p e t i t i o n without Crim. the P. As circuit well signed the circuit the court review. arguments to later in this arguments would not have 987 So. 2d See 7 1122, affirm R u l e 45, 1126 arguments C o u r t has opinion, and, outcome P.; of 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 the error did outcome the after but upon of the the reviewed as will that his 32 Williams, the trial or be those Rule reviewing 'harmless trial the appellate Ex p a r t e ("[B]efore R. Therefore, for can affect reply convinced App. 2007) based Ala. thoroughly reply is a l t e r e d the judgment his i t s order. Jenkins's (Ala. filed the h i s arguments before his A l a . R. R u l e 45, court not a this in discussed proceedings. entered preserve contained See dismissing d i s m i s s i n g the p e t i t i o n to plead More i m p o r t a n t l y , the and court circuit order Jenkins order opportunity the harmless. below, the had signing r e p l y was discussed court before Jenkins the in error' court's otherwise 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 t h e 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 t h e 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 only pleading i t had received f r o m Mr. Jenkins was his 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) (emphasis 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 t h e r e c o r d . ( 2 d R. 32 C. 3-17.) 7 28 CR-08-0490 prejudice and to a substantial quotations any r e l i e f right omitted). based of the defendant.") Therefore, on t h i s Jenkins (citations i s not entitled issue. C. Jenkins violated court because circuit until that his right d i d not receive t h e November December court reconsider argues he had signed petition the next notice 25, 2008 23, 2008. petition. order signed the order, two days days receive and t h e c i r c u i t Jenkins included This The Jenkins's signed he h a d o n l y circuit dismissing the to Jenkins, the dismissing circuit Rule to file court h i s motion t o c o u r t h a d o n l y two days t o c o n s i d e r the Christmas Court the c i r c u i t then argues that because those consideration process. was He t h e n a r g u e s t h a t b e c a u s e h e d i d n o t r e c e i v e 28 d a y s a f t e r two the s i g n i n g the order of the dismissal u n t i l that motion. process t o e n t e r t a i n a motion t o notice reconsider that According retained jurisdiction f o r o n l y 30 d a y s a f t e r t o due in holiday, violation of remaining h i s motion d i d not his to right due disagrees. court rendered 32 petition on the State's proposed order. 29 i t s judgment November dismissing 25, 2008, when i t See R u l e 58(a), A l a . R. CR-08-0490 Civ. P. ("A execution Jenkins, Judge may a separate its written he r e c e i v e d December 23, 2008. render notice when the order Information System. order judgment or a 8 order or of the c i r c u i t ... by " ) . According document The c i r c u i t judgment f o r f i n a l i t y 2009, an judgment to court's a c t i o n on c o u r t , however, d i d n o t e n t e r and t i m i n g purposes u n t i l was See shall entered into Rule 58(c), be deemed the J a n u a r y 2, State A l a . R. 'entered' Judicial C i v . P. within ("An the 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 effective 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: 8 " 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 t h e time f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f appeal began to run without the losing party's h a v i n g 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 e l e c t r o n i c 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." 30 CR-08-0490 meaning of t h e s e R u l e s and the Rules of A p p e l l a t e of input the the a c t u a l date State of Judicial Wright, 860 R. Civ. P., petition is Jenkins received dismissing entered So. the Information 2d 1253, governs when entered for h i s Rule 32 of became f i n a l . received circuit court's Moreover, untimely manner, this order see 10 judgment also (Rule Ala. Rule court's days before of parte 32 Accordingly, circuit notice Ex a as into 58(c), dismissing purposes.). the timely i f or Under t h e s e f a c t s , judgment. even order System."); timing petition and the ( A l a . 2002) an notice Jenkins that 1254 of Procedure that this the order order Court entry was holds of the 9 Jenkins Court did would f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s b e c a u s e any not receive remand e r r o r was notice this harmless. in an cause for Rule 45, On 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 order holding that i t lacked 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 . Jenkins d o e s n o t a r g u e on a p p e a l t h a t t h e 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 , t h e s e i s s u e s are not b e f o r e 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 (Ala. 1994) ("Issues not argued i n the appellant's brief are w a i v e d . " ) . 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 motion to reconsider 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 . 10, 2010] So. 3 d , ( A l a . 2010) . 9 31 CR-08-0490 Ala. R. App. within P. 30 days dismissing assertions 32 filed circuit petition, d i d not court and i t s order reviewing a l l of Court is those p l e a d i n g s would have a l t e r e d convinced that See Ex ("[B]efore the upon 'harmless conclusively outcome right of of the none parte reviewing that the the of court error' trial or in the order of appeal pleadings and d i s m i s s i n g the outcome of the p r o c e e d i n g s , 32 987 affirm that So. a at judgment court a 1126 based must find affect the substantial quotations omitted). h i s motion to reconsider the and the arguments circuit court signed i t s have altered the petition 32 2d e r r o r d i d not none o f any this in and 32 petition. contained (citations Rule after pleadings, prejudice after filed the outcome of h i s R u l e the court's because filed Jenkins arguments can preserve throughly reviewed Jenkins's the order a timely notice otherwise defendant.") the d i s m i s s i n g the rule, trial reconsider opportunity to Williams, Because Jenkins t i m e l y f i l e d notice filed has signed to signing i n a l l the p l e a d i n g s thoroughly the he l o s e the After proceedings. h i s motion court Further, t h i s Court contained circuit Jenkins the T h u s , he arguments. the of h i s Rule of appeal. any Here, delay would in notifying contained Jenkins of CR-08-0490 the o r d e r was h a r m l e s s . Jenkins Rule i s not e n t i t l e d 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 argues h i s Rule that the c i r c u i t 32 p e t i t i o n 3 2 . 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. C r i m . time limitation P. court erroneously was t i m e - b a r r e d p u r s u a n t First, contained i n Rule J e n k i n s argues 3 2 . 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. P., d o e s n o t a p p l y t o a s u c c e s s i v e p e t i t i o n R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C r i m . relief or based on a new P., b a s e d rule the Alabama with r e s p e c t t o when when i t d e c i d e d Ex p a r t e B u r g e s s , (Jenkins's based 32 Supreme brief, Court juror a t 34.) Burgess that and the because Supreme he s i x months opinion i n Ex p a r t e B u r g e s s , 32.2(c), Alternatively, A l a . R. the law i n Alabama c l a i m s may 21 S o . 3 d 746 be raised" ( A l a . 2008). the established h i s second Supreme the time Crim. Jenkins argues on t h e "new g r o u n d " Court filed within Rule of asserts A c c o r d i n g t o J e n k i n s , because h i s juror-misconduct claim relief f i l e d pursuant to Jenkins then "changed misconduct Crim. on a "new g r o u n d " f o r of law. that that P., Court's Rule f o r Rule i n Ex 32 parte petition release of i t s limitation contained i n does bar not t h a t even i f t h e time 33 he relief. limitation CR-08-0490 contained was i n Rule entitled claim was on Again, Alabama the Court had tolling. law" P., does established that created a c l a i m s may not c r e a t e d u n t i l petition "new Jenkins asserts Supreme juror-misconduct was Crim. be after i n Ex new asserted law and Ala. he he parte Burgess, governing this when new law on h i s R u l e is entitled to 32 equitable This Court disagrees. the time limitation R. Crim. P., Supreme Court established Rule relief assertions, law Ex parte the time l i m i t a t i o n expired; therefore, b a r r e d by 32 in that 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 not apply, to e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g because h i s j u r o r - m i s c o n d u c t based Burgess. the 3 2 . 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. i s based i n Ex a parte contained i n Rule the "new premise law" or Burgess. a that the "new ground" Contrary to Alabama Jenkins's misconduct claim 3 2 . 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) and was (a)(5), Court, parte holding procedurally A l a . R. Burgess, Court had whether this Ex this new Supreme C o u r t g r a n t e d c e r t i o r a r i r e v i e w " t o d e t e r m i n e [of In that a Alabama decision law. i t held for the the existing instead, is 32.2(c), 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 i n Ex p a r t e B u r g e s s ; misapplied on his petition that barred C r i m . P.,] 34 Burgess's pursuant conflict[ed] jurorto Rule with Ex CR-08-0490 parte Pierce, S o . 2 d 763 (Ala. In a 8 5 1 S o . 2 d 606 ( A l a . 2001), Ex p a r t e B u r g e s s , not pursuant be t o Rule procedurally (a)(5), c o u l d be 32.1(a), barred i f the p e t i t i o n e r evidence "that raised proved by t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was at i n a motion 616-17. reaffirmed and The Supreme Ex p a r t e this Court's Rule 32 failed Burgess or i n time holding Supreme to disclose alleged information during that voir was ( A l a . 2001), App. Court of that 2003). reviewed Burgess's jurors dire. the juror-misconduct to raise Pierce ( A l a . Crim. alleged of the 851 So. 2d in 805 S o . 2 d 7 6 3 , 768 Burgess and and c o u l d not o r on a p p e a l . " the Alabama i n which and would 32.2(a)(3) a f f i r m a n c e o f t h e summary d i s m i s s a l petition had P., n o t known, 890 S o . 2 d 1068 Burgess, constitutional a preponderance Court's i n Ex p a r t e Dobyne, DeBruce v. S t a t e , In f o r new t r i a l that as a to Rule r e a s o n a b l y have been d i s c o v e r e d , a t t r i a l the issue 21 S o . 3 d a t 7 5 0 . Crim. A l a . R. pursuant 805 890 S o . 2 d 1 0 6 8 t h e Alabama Supreme C o u r t e s t a b l i s h e d juror-misconduct claim claim Ex p a r t e Dobyne, and DeBruce v. S t a t e , C r i m . App. 2003)." Ex p a r t e P i e r c e , ( A l a . 2000), claim had Although was not 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 d i s c o v e r e d the alleged juror misconduct i n time 35 to raise the claims i n a CR-08-0490 motion o r a new trial o r on a p p e a l , " this Court 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 b e c a u s e t h e y but were not, raised Burgess, Alabama that 21 So. Supreme this at t r i a l 3d at Court Court (emphasis reversed this erroneously established i n Ex p a r t e P i e r c e , 851 Dobyne, So. must establish Rule 2d 32.2(a)(3) 606, held and that procedural bars R. and Crim. a what A l a . R. trial i n time o r on a p p e a l . " 2d 606, a Rule Crim. the standard and Ex 32 parte petitioner bars contained P. Specifically, 32 can petitioner i n Rule to raise 1 0 decision, holding on E x p a r t e P i e r c e , 851 i f that petitioner misconduct The relying Rule contained parte original). in the procedural (a)(5), Court, So. been, Ex applied 32.2(a)(3) shows " 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 juror new P., regarding t o overcome t h e A l a b a m a Supreme 2d 763, appeal. Court's had 805 c o u l d have a n d on d i r e c t 754 held that h i s that he was discovered the claims Ex p a r t e B u r g e s s , So. overcome and in the (a)(5), A l a . unaware of the a l l e g e d i n a motion or a 21 S o . 3d a t 7 5 4 . 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 "that the i n f o r m a t i o n [ r e l a t i n g to h i s juror-misconduct c l a i m ] 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 , a t t r i a l o r 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 , " E x p a r t e P i e r c e , 851 S o . 2 d 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 u n a w a r e o f t h e c l a i m . 1 0 36 CR-08-0490 See a l s o Ex p a r t e P i e r c e , misconduct] that was cognizable t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was have been in claim 851 S o . 2 d a t 616 n o t known, discovered, at t r i a l a motion f o r new as trial long l a w o r a new parte Burgess. erroneously Pierce, 1 1 ground or i n time applied the established i t determined the when that established a new rule i t decided this in Court Ex Ex had parte 851 S o . 2 d a t 6 1 6 . 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 issue A c c o r d i n g l y , the establish 32 r e l i e f standard he to raise o r on a p p e a l . " ) . f o r Rule Instead, as [juror- and c o u l d n o t r e a s o n a b l y Supreme C o u r t d i d n o t , as J e n k i n s a r g u e s , of ("Pierce's o r a new ground f o r Rule 32 relief i n Ex p a r t e a new Burgess, 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 E x p a r t e P i e r c e , 851 S o . 2 d 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 n o t , 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 . J e n k i n s c i t e s K i n g v . S t a t e , 689 S o . 2 d 931 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) , R i c e v . S t a t e , 682 S o . 2 d 485 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) , a n d M i t c h e l l v . S t a t e , 547 S o . 2 d 1194 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 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 cases 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 t o 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 ) , Ala. 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. 1 1 37 CR-08-0490 Jenkins's assertion juror-misconduct limitation without did in contained merit. parte tolling that no case, new the time the v. that subject i s not of 2d 733 724, that Jenkins filed to Rule So. 2d time case. Ohio to tolling ... h i s Rule circuit 398 , 420 32 So. 2d 310, nonjurisdictional, v. S t a t e , that limitation 312 to is Court relief equitable See Fitts 2009) v. ("Given petitioner's] fail."). petition correctly before dismissed Crim. ( A l a . Crim. P. App. See 2003) nonjurisdictional); ( A l a . Crim. constitutional set forth P., 32 must A l a . R. time Supreme [the juror-misconduct claims are (holding the Crim. entitled (N.D. 32.7(d), to the procedural bars App. 2006) A l a . R. that applies for equitable 899 of the Alabama release exists 891 P.); Tucker the Jenkins Supp. pursuant State, that application l a w o r a new g r o u n d f o r R u l e the unless State, v. (holding Crim. F. of t h a t case exempted h i s 32.2(c), limitation expired, this (holding Bowen on rule petition Wood a new [his] plea Therefore, the i n Rule Burgess, 626 from L i k e w i s e , because based Eberlin, to claim not e s t a b l i s h Ex that the release App. 2004) claims are i n Rule 3 2 , A l a . R. 956 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 0 , 1 1 7 1 (Ala. Crim. nonjurisdictional contained Crim. P.). 38 i n Rule claims are subject 32.2(c), A l a . R. CR-08-0490 Rule 3 2 . 2 ( c ) , A l a . R. Crim. P., 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 ) , unless 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 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 affirming of and death this Alabama Supreme C o u r t affirmed this Court's Jenkins's capital-murder convictions on May Court 28, 1993, issued Ex parte J e n k i n s , 627 i t s certificate 39 of and sentences So. judgment judgment on 2d 1054, October CR-08-0490 28, 1993. until October contained Because Jenkins pursuant For court 1, i n Rule limitation it Jenkins d i d not f i l e 2008, had e x p i r e d , to Rule 32 the c i r c u i t A l a . R. reasons, the Crim. P., petition court Crim. 32 limitation had after correctly P. the judgment petition expired. the time dismissed 12 of the circuit i s affirmed. A P P L I C A T I O N FOR R E H E A R I N G 17, time A l a . R. h i s Rule 32.7(d), the foregoing Rule after well 32.2(c), filed h i s current OVERRULED; O P I N I O N OF 2 0 1 0 , WITHDRAWN; O P I N I O N S U B S T I T U T E D ; Welch, P . J . , and K e l l u m , Burke, DECEMBER AFFIRMED. and J o i n e r , J J . , c o n c u r . Because this Court has a f f i r m e d 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 discuss the c i r c u i t court's a l t e r n a t i v e reasons f o r dismissing the p e t i t i o n . 1 2 40

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.