Ex parte Robert Shawn Ingram. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Robert Shawn Ingram v. State of Alabama)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/19/2010 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 , A l a b a m a 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 b e 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1060413 Ex p a r t e R o b e r t Shawn Ingram PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In r e : Robert Shawn Ingram v. State o f Alabama) ( T a l l a d e g a C i r c u i t C o u r t , CC-94-260.60; C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s , CR-03-1707) PER CURIAM. 1060413 Robert certiorari erred Shawn to Ingram p e t i t i o n e d review in affirming Court summarily We the issued order findings and issued an The order issued by the Ingram was by recommended t h a t judge was appeal. Ingram 1999) v. and State, ("Ingram I " ) , a f f ' d , denied, issued 531 U.S. 1193 a certificate On C r i m . P., February 1, petition. 32, court R. d u r i n g the I n g r a m be actual History participating 1975, § sentenced were 77 9 So. So. (2001). 2d 2d The 1283 Court on to death. death. on direct (Ala. Crim. ( A l a . 2000), of C r i m i n a l a The a separate Ingram to September filed the 13A-5-40(a)(1). affirmed 1225 in of a k i d n a p p i n g , sentenced sentence 26, Rule App. cert. Appeals 2000. 32, In March 2002, the S t a t e f i l e d 2 P., whether the Fielding; following Ingram Circuit to review course A l a . Code of judgment Appeals Crim. represents Procedural 779 2002, Ala. of court. s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , Judge F i e l d i n g conviction Criminal of c e r t i o r a r i J u d g e J e r r y L. Ingram's of for a writ the T a l l a d e g a c o n v i c t e d of Huguley o f f e n s e made c a p i t a l trial Rule trial F a c t s and of Gregory jury his the w r i t by Court Court c o n c l u s i o n s of t h a t 1995, murder the the I. In whether denying petition. this a Ala. R. response 1060413 to Ingram's State's and In A p r i l dismissal. petition 2002, motion a motion Ingram for a partial for a filed summary an amended discovery filed and Rule 32 p e t i t i o n , funds responses t o Ingram's to the also In J u l y motions response a motion f o r expert which f o r experts. a summary dismissal, p r o c e e d e x p a r t e on a r e q u e s t f o r f u n d s and partial to assistance, requested 2002, full the State and h i s amended R u l e 32 petition. On May 2 0 , 2 0 0 4 , t h e S t a t e f i l e d Ingram's Rule 32 p e t i t i o n . the S t a t e ' s proposed over Ingram d i d not f i l e order. Judge F i e l d i n g , Ingram's c a p i t a l - m u r d e r t r i a l R u l e 32 p r o c e e d i n g s w e r e p e n d i n g , Judge W i l l i a m On denying June the only 8, that proposed 2004, Judge denying a response to who h a d p r e s i d e d i n 1995, r e t i r e d w h i l e t h e a n d t h e c a s e was a s s i g n e d t o Hollingsworth issued the order filed by modifications being that to "Proposed an order ("the J u n e 8 o r d e r " ) . I ti s constituted order opposed order E. H o l l i n g s w o r t h . I n g r a m ' s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n undisputed a proposed Order" the State a verbatim adoption of on May the heading 20, 2004, stated "Order" and t h e s i g n a t u r e page Judge H o l l i n g s w o r t h ' s s i g n a t u r e r a t h e r than Judge 3 the as contained Fielding's. 1060413 Judge Hollingsworth did not hold c o n f e r e n c e on I n g r a m ' s p e t i t i o n the June 8 order e x p l i c i t l y On July 16, 2004, 21, July 21 order 2004, order") and to Hollingsworth case. The Judge address Ingram he filed purported Ingram's recuse h i m s e l f from 21 order motion stated, a an untimely issued to motions. motion to of a p p e a l . On an order rescind seeking further status a n d he d i d n o t i n a timely notice grant July or Ingram's pending Hollingsworth i n which hearing and m o t i o n s , r e c o n s i d e r t h e J u n e 8 o r d e r and July a to the have involvement in pertinent ("the June 8 Judge i n the part: " F o r c a u s e s h o w n , i t i s t h e r e f o r e ORDERED t h a t t h e C o u r t ' s O r d e r d a t e d J u n e 8, 2004 d i s m i s s i n g t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s f i r s t a m e n d e d R u l e 32 P e t i t i o n i s h e r e b y v a c a t e d , s e t a s i d e and h e l d f o r n a u g h t . " F u r t h e r , the u n d e r s i g n e d does h i m s e l f from f u r t h e r matters i n t h i s By Appeals order dated directed the September trial 7, 2004, the hereby case." Court recuse of Criminal court " t o s e t a s i d e i t s J u l y 21, 2004, o r d e r b e c a u s e t h e m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r was u n t i m e l y a n d b e c a u s e t h e c i r c u i t court r e t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n to modify i t s J u n e 8, 2 0 0 4 , o r d e r f o r o n l y 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e o r d e r was issued. See Ex p a r t e B i s h o p , 883 So. 2 d 262 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003)." The Court of Criminal Hollingsworth's Appeals summary d e n i a l subsequently of 4 affirmed Ingram's Rule 32 Judge petition. 1060413 See Ingram v. So. 3d State, [Ms. (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) petitioned this Court Ingram claiming s e v e r a l g r o u n d s on w h i c h granted. whether This the Court June conclusions granted 8 order of the "'This de 2004) Court (quoting Ex Ex for a writ certiorari Ingram's of certiorari review should petition on actual the be issue findings and court. Standard reviews novo.'" 2006] ("Ingram I I " ) . r e p r e s e n t s the trial II. cases CR-03-1707, S e p t e m b e r 29, pure of questions p a r t e Morrow, parte Key, Review So. So. 8 90 915 2d of law 2d in 539, 1056, criminal 541 (Ala. 1059 (Ala. o r d e r g r a n t i n g or denying relief 2003)). III. It i s axiomatic that under Rule court. 3 2 , A l a . R. It conclusions the must of creation be the of the authority Alabama Constitution, (now Crim. a P., m u s t be an o r d e r o f t h e m a n i f e s t a t i o n of court. judicial § 6.01(a) an Analysis Although judicial branch to the c i r c u i t Ala. § 139(a), A l a . Const. and 1901, 1901 findings authority the c o u r t s of t h i s Const. 5 no the trial other and than delegation of State i n the Amend. No. 328, (Off. Recomp.)), i s 1060413 necessary Rules 32.1 support. the to through enter an a p p r o p r i a t e court shall "the finds make decision Rule certain i n favor order"; specific of fact Ingram begins P., 32.7(d) Rule also states t o be 32.9(c) of provide that " [ i f ] true, i t may provides that of the p e t i t i o n e r , i t s h a l l Rule findings presented"; of a c i r c u i t the provisions Crim. matters the p e t i t i o n ; the court issue A l a . R. things, determines" dismiss proposition, 32.10, "[i]f material this Among o t h e r court summarily support 32.9(d) states of fact that relating and Rule "[t]he t o each 32.10 r e f e r s t o court." h i s argument to this Court as f o l l o w s : "The S u p r e m e C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s has ' c r i t i c i z e d courts f o r their verbatim adoption of f i n d i n g s o f f a c t p r e p a r e d by p r e v a i l i n g p a r t i e s , ' A n d e r s o n v . C i t y o f B e s s e m e r , 470 U.S. 5 4 6 , 572 (1985), and Alabama a p p e l l a t e courts have warned against the wholesale adoption of proposed findings o f f a c t o r c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w . S e e Weeks v . S t a t e , 568 S o . 2 d 8 6 4 , 865 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 9 ) ('[W]e i s s u e a c a u t i o n t h a t c o u r t s s h o u l d be r e l u c t a n t t o adopt v e r b a t i m t h e 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 p r e p a r e d by t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y ' ) ; see a l s o D o b y n e v . S t a t e , 805 S o . 2 d 7 3 3 , 7 4 1 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2000) ('the p r a c t i c e of adopting the state's proposed f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s i s subject to criticism')." Ingram (Ala. then Crim. quotes Williams App. 1991), v. State, 627 f o r the proposition 6 So. 2d that 9 8 5 , 993 a wholesale 1060413 adoption case of a d r a f t order "gives rise conclusions general to a legal are i n fact Although there those Court in a capital be of the court." merit i n Ingram's a trial court order 805 S o . 2 d 7 3 3 , 741 of Criminal Appeals does argument, the i n fact adopt i s owed t o t h a t a s i t s own, d e f e r e n c e t h e same m e a s u r e a s a n y o t h e r Dobyne v. S t a t e , the may by t h e S t a t e i s s u e o f whether t h e f i n d i n g s and r u l e i s t h a t , where the proposed order in prepared order of the t r i a l (Ala. Crim. court. App. In 2000), stated: "'"While the practice of adopting the state's proposed f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s i s subject to c r i t i c i s m , t h e g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t e v e n when t h e court adopts proposed findings verbatim, the f i n d i n g s a r e t h o s e o f t h e c o u r t a n d may b e r e v e r s e d only i f c l e a r l y erroneous."'" 805 S o . 2 d a t 741 McGee v . S t a t e , the Court court of may b e r e v e r s e d Cf. United (1964) adoption States emphasis added). In ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 3 ) , stated that a party's and c o n c l u s i o n s they cases; 885 S o . 2 d 1 9 1 , 2 2 9 - 3 0 adopts verbatim fact other of Criminal Appeals and 656 (quoting proposed of law are those " e v e n when a order, trial the findings of the t r i a l court only i f they are c l e a r l y v. E l Paso Natural Gas C o . , 376 U.S. 6 5 1 , (expressing disapproval of f i n d i n g s of fact prepared 7 of the erroneous." "mechanical" by a p a r t y , b u t s t a t i n g 1060413 that such "are not In the findings t o be this are formally rejected unusual above-stated cannot case, "general order are The conclude that in fact those June of the trial judge and out-of-hand"). however, rule" d e s p i t e the f a c t that the t r i a l we those the 8 order begins is judge findings of the as we court cannot conclude applicable. That that i s , s i g n e d the June 8 o r d e r , and conclusions in that itself. follows: "Having c o n s i d e r e d the f i r s t amended R u l e 32 petition presented to the Court, the State of A l a b a m a ' s amended a n s w e r , t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a ' s motions to d i s m i s s , the evidence p r e s e n t e d at t r i a l , and t h e e v e n t s w i t h i n t h e p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e o f t h e C o u r t , t h e C o u r t makes t h e f o l l o w i n g 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 and s u m m a r i l y d i s m i s s e s and d e n i e s t h e c l a i m s i n I n g r a m ' s f i r s t amended R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . " (Emphasis added.) the June 8 order After a rendition of the f a c t s of the states: "The f i n d i n g s b y t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s [ i n Ingram I] guide the Court i n i t s r e s o l u t i o n of the issues presented i n the first amended R u l e 32 petition. The C o u r t i s a l s o r e l y i n g on t h e trial t r a n s c r i p t where n e c e s s a r y to s u p p o r t the C o u r t ' s findings and the resolution of this Rule 32 petition. In a d d i t i o n , t h i s Court p r e s i d e d over Ingram's capital murder trial and personally observed the performance of both lawyers throughout Ingram's t r i a l and s e n t e n c i n g . " (Emphasis added.) 8 case, 1060413 The obvious above-quoted Fielding, problem with passages not Judge capital-murder in handling judge i n f a c t and is busy knowledge obvious their his June way into dockets, the order the by judge the of the actual presided error that over to J u l y 21 himself on by personal doing did not Despite Court of trial so the trial observations i s the and before and t h a t the independent of these even State court order from recognized by whether and most m a t e r i a l read errors indicates the s i g n i n g and issuing June 8 o r d e r findings of proposed cannot the to the that the r e s c i n d the case June confirms 8 order June that was the erroneous statements Criminal Appeals and Judge fatally i n the a f f i r m e d the 9 8 order order i t as the represent trial Ingram f u r t h e r contends t h a t Judge H o l l i n g s w o r t h ' s the errors drafted as Judge Ingram's factual orders an is the of e r r o r s . trial submitted order of judge i n a capital-murder decision acquired portions minor Ingram contends t h a t the nature that 8 Although s a t as t h e t r i a l basing personal and find the emphasized Hollingsworth, trial. understandably courts from the court. attempt to in recuse Hollingsworth flawed. June 8 o r d e r , judgment of the the trial 1060413 court upon i n s u m m a r i l y d i s m i s s i n g I n g r a m ' s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n the standard evaluating those of review an findings of fact following party. passage The C o u r t from court and c o n c l u s i o n s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s prevailing appellate based employs o f law even are adopted verbatim of Criminal Appeals in when from the quoted the Dobyne: "'"'While the p r a c t i c e of adopting the s t a t e ' s p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s is subject to c r i t i c i s m , the general r u l e i s t h a t e v e n when t h e c o u r t a d o p t s p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s verbatim, the f i n d i n g s are those o f t h e c o u r t a n d may be r e v e r s e d o n l y i f c l e a r l y erroneous. Anderson v. C i t y o f Bessemer C i t y , N.C., 470 U.S. 564 , 105 S . C t . 1 5 0 4 , 84 L . E d . 2 d 518 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ; H u b b a r d v . S t a t e , 584 S o . 2 d 8 95 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) ; Weeks v . S t a t e , 568 S o . 2 d 864 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1989), c e r t . d e n i e d , [ 4 9 8 ] U.S. [882], 111 S . C t . 2 3 0 , 112 L . E d . 2 d 184 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ; M o r r i s o n v . S t a t e , 551 S o . 2 d 435 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 495 U.S. 911, 110 S . C t . 1 9 3 8 , 109 L . E d . 2 d 301 (1990).' " ' " B e l l v . S t a t e , 593 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 , 126 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1991), c e r t . denied, 593 S o . 2 d 123 (Ala.), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 9 9 1 , 112 S . C t . 2 9 8 1 , 119 L . E d . 2 d 599 (1992)."'" Ingram 741, (Ala. II, So. 3d a t quoting Crim. concluded i n turn App. that Jones (quoting v. State, 1999)). The "the facts and 10 Court Dobyne, 753 805 S o . 2 d a t So. 2d 1174, 1180 of conclusions Criminal of law Appeals i n the 1060413 circuit that court's therefore affirmed. The the Ingram State Appeals, any [ J u n e 8] o r d e r w e r e n o t trial II, echoes court's So. the 3d c l e a r l y erroneous" judgment at was erroneous. because, court's The statements reasoning of in f i n d i n g s and State the i t argues, further trial the Court that claims i n the claims were trial Rule not the 32 June sufficiently appeal, the i n cases were 8 i n which the proposed order p r o f f e r e d by based pleaded, decided both the trial of the Court his were prevailing as to personal individual finding that the supported not standard has harmless order the adversely court clearly judge's by to defaulted." erroneous" the on how erroneous are f i n d i n g s i n the or were p r o c e d u r a l l y "clearly were order specific petition transcript, Though own, Criminal the knowledge. " I n s t e a d , Judge H o l l i n g s w o r t h d e n i e d apply of conclusions contends court's be . Ingram's c l a i m s were not b a s e d upon the t r i a l direct to n o t i n g t h a t Ingram f a i l e d to e x p l a i n s p e c i f i c a l l y of the t r i a l the due and Ingram 1 of review adopted, party, on the o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s and as may its analysis the State If t h e t r i a l j u d g e ' s p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e was, in fact, s u p e r f l u o u s t o t h e 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 o f l a w , t h e n one w o n d e r s why the State i n c l u d e d these statements i n i t s proposed order i n the f i r s t p l a c e . 1 11 1060413 fails to admit of requirement: that in are such order the the most order fundamental and the i n f a c t those In her dissent to Appeals in Ingram II, of the trial of the then Judge the order reason that findings 805 So. of the "the and 2d conclusions at the State, 741, of and that N.E.2d independent trial App. court. 1991) Ingram the and II Court -for of In the the note of the case h i s t o r y of the and . the the adopting Indeed, state's proposed to criticism, Dobyne, erosion court that 709 (Ind. courts order "clearly court." Prowell c a r e f u l to evaluate the verbatim State, findings 2001). m u s t be findings the trial d r a f t e d by court v. the very " appellate case the Criminal Criminal inevitable impartial Bell of i s an 704, trial took at subject conclusions "there appellate the 3d judgment of a prepared a d o p t e d by is an considered 741 of i s because Accordingly, a claim So. practice confidence reflect v. itself." first court. Court Cobb " d i s t u r b i n g elements i n the p r o c e d u r a l in the f i n d i n g s and opinion the and does not and 593 prevailing party So. reflect conclusions 2d 123 of (Ala. the Crim. C o u r t of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s quoted erroneous" Appeals standard observed: 12 of the review in 1060413 "The trial court d i d adopt v e r b a t i m the proposed order tendered by the state; however, from our review of the r e c o r d , we are convinced that the findings and conclusions are those of the trial court. The r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t was thoroughly familiar with the case and gave the a p p e l l a n t c o n s i d e r a b l e leeway i n p r e s e n t i n g evidence to s u p p o r t h i s c l a i m s . " Bell, 593 So. facts in the conclusion We (emphasis case the to reverse In the the 126 present f o r c e d by June 8 o r d e r of at the regarding observations undermines any confidence conclusions judge's independent reflects the the of of the June the of the a similar errors present that law trial Ingram's the are judgment f i n d i n g s and reverse affirming undisputed prevent judgment of the and We The Court of in and judgment of 8 order, and 13 the we judge's product that conclusions nature "personal capital-murder trial the judge's of Court the that trial findings of of the trial 8 order June court. of C r i m i n a l remand t h i s the Criminal s i m p l e s t terms, the p a t e n t l y erroneous statements and obviously nature knowledge" fact added). here. are Appeals. 2d case Appeals for that 1060413 court, i n turn, Ingram's pending R E V E R S E D AND Woodall, t o remand motions i t to the t r i a l and h i s Rule 32 court to consider petition. 2 REMANDED. Stuart, Smith, Bolin and Murdock, Lyons, J . , concurs and P a r k e r , J J . , c o n c u r . J J . , concur i n the C o b b , C . J . , a n d Shaw, J . , specially. result. 3 recuse themselves. I t i s o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t t h i s c a s e was r e a s s i g n e d t o J u d g e F i e l d i n g , a s a s u p e r n u m e r a r y c i r c u i t j u d g e , when J u d g e Hollingsworth recused himself. 2 Justice Shaw was a member o f t h e C o u r t A p p e a l s when t h a t c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h i s c a s e . 3 14 of Criminal 1060413 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e The Court's Hollingsworth's untimely himself decision July manner, from circumstances attempted, provides (concurring the to of t h i s albeit in the case, the the not which concurs. 15 on and that, under the t h a t Judge to r e s c i n d the of the in to an recuse particular Hollingsworth June 8 soundness d i d not court. Judge purported, order June 8 order trial he based 8 fact confirmation of is June I believe t h a t the judgment J., order unsuccessfully, Court's conclusion Bolin, today rescind case. additional independent 21 specially). of represent order this the 1060413 LYONS, Justice We are presented impression: court (concurring i n the r e s u l t ) . Whether o f an o r d e r evident we here will prepared from the face with tolerate a question the entry by t h e p r e v a i l i n g of the order consider this my r e s e a r c h t o be a q u e s t i o n by that the t r i a l of f i r s t first a trial p a r t y when i t i s not have c a r e f u l l y r e a d t h e p r o p o s e d o r d e r b e f o r e I of court could enteringi t . impression because does n o t , t h a n k f u l l y , d i s c l o s e a p r e v i o u s similar circumstance. In 2000), Dobyne v . S t a t e , relied proposition applies by upon that to orders the t r i a l 805 S o . 2 d 7 3 3 , 742 by t h e Court the " c l e a r l y (Ala. Crim. of Criminal Appeals erroneous" standard of App. f o r the review p r o p o s e d b y one o f t h e p a r t i e s a n d a d o p t e d court, the court stated: "Moreover, as p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , the c i r c u i t j u d g e who p r e s i d e d o v e r t h i s R u l e 3 2 [ , A l a . R. C r i m . P.,] p r o c e e d i n g a l s o p r e s i d e d o v e r D o b y n e ' s t r i a l ; t h e c i r c u i t j u d g e was t h o r o u g h l y f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e c a s e . A f t e r r e v i e w i n g t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e , we f i n d t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s o r d e r d e n y i n g Dobyne's postconviction r e l i e f represents the c i r c u i t court's independent judgment and i t s c o n s i d e r e d c o n c l u s i o n s . T h e r e f o r e , we c o n c l u d e that the c i r c u i t court d i d not commit r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by a d o p t i n g t h e o r d e r d r a f t e d by t h e s t a t e . " 16 1060413 (Emphasis added.) Dobyne does n o t d e a l w i t h a p r o p o s e d that describes inaccurately former evidence read the proposed recites were personal that role i n the us o f t h e t r i a l judge's order i n t h i s proceeding facts the t r i a l he judge presided i s conclusive. would over failure have the to The h a d t o know trial and had k n o w l e d g e o f t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f c o u n s e l , when he d i d Under the circumstances, the findings court, thereby above-stated must before incorrect--that not. judge's proceeding. The order the t r i a l order contained be a r e s o u n d i n g have i n the order distinguishing question we of f i r s t "No!" 17 Dobyne. irrefutable evidence are not those The impression we answer address of the to the today

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.