Jenkins v. Alabama
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Mark Allen Jenkins was convicted in March 1991 of two counts of capital murder which was committed during the course of a robbery and during the course of a kidnapping. By a vote of 10-2, the jury recommended that Jenkins be sentenced to death. The trial court accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced Jenkins to death. In early 2012, the Supreme Court granted Jenkins's petition for a writ of certiorari only as to the ground challenging the Court of Criminal Appeals' affirmance of the trial court's order dismissing Jenkins's Rule 32 petition on the bases that the trial court adopted verbatim the State's proposed order, and the Court held in abeyance the other grounds raised in Jenkins's petition pending resolution of this issue. The Court affirmed the Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment insofar as it upheld the trial court's adoption of the State's proposed order denying Jenkins's Rule 32 petition; as to the remaining grounds the Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.
Download PDF
REL:09/21/2012 Notice: This o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 Reporter o f Decisions, 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 ((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 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2012 1101410 Ex p a r t e Mark A l l e n Jenkins PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In r e : Mark A l l e n Jenkins v. S t a t e o f Alabama) (St. C l a i r C i r c u i t Court, CC-89-68.61; Court o f C r i m i n a l Appeals, CR-08-04 90) BOLIN, Justice. Mark A l l e n Jenkins petitioned this Court f o ra writ of c e r t i o r a r i , r a i s i n g a number o f g r o u n d s f o r c e r t i o r a r i review. 1101410 This Court granted the p e t i t i o n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the Court f o r the l i m i t e d purpose of C r i m i n a l Appeals' of decision a f f i r m i n g the t r i a l court's verbatim adoption of the S t a t e ' s proposed dismissing order Jenkins's petition for p o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 3 2 , A l a . R. C r i m . P., c o n f l i c t s w i t h t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n s i n Ex p a r t e Ingram, 51 So. 3d 1119 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) , a n d Ex p a r t e S c o t t , M a r c h 18, 2011] So. 3d ( A l a . 2011) . [Ms. 1091275, 1 F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y Mark A l l e n J e n k i n s was c o n v i c t e d i n March 1991 o f two c o u n t s o f m u r d e r made c a p i t a l b e c a u s e t h e m u r d e r was during the course of a robbery and d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e kidnapping, see §§ 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 2 ) Code By 1975. a vote J e n k i n s be s e n t e n c e d committed of a and 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . o f 10-2, t h e j u r y t o d e a t h . The t r i a l recommended that court accepted the j u r y ' s recommendation and s e n t e n c e d J e n k i n s t o d e a t h f o r t h e capital-murder convictions. the Judge H.E. H o l l a d a y p r e s i d e d o v e r trial. T h i s Court h e l d i n abeyance t h e r e m a i n i n g grounds r a i s e d in the c e r t i o r a r i p e t i t i o n pending the d i s p o s i t i o n of t h i s issue. 1 2 1101410 On February 28, 1992, the Court of Criminal a f f i r m e d J e n k i n s ' s c o n v i c t i o n s and s e n t e n c e s . State, 1993, 627 So. this 1034 Court decision. On 2d ( A l a . Crim. affirmed the App. Court See Ex p a r t e J e n k i n s , 627 March 28, 1994, the Jenkins's p e t i t i o n A l a b a m a , 511 On May U.S. United for a writ 1012 26, 1995, 1992) . of So. States See Appeals Jenkins On May Criminal 2d 1054 28, Appeals' ( A l a . 1993) . Supreme of c e r t i o r a r i . v. Court See denied Jenkins v. (1994). Jenkins f i l e d h i s f i r s t R u l e 32 petition i n t h e S t . C l a i r C i r c u i t C o u r t , i n w h i c h he a s s e r t e d numerous claims for relief. On November 26, amendment t o h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t he was juror, L.V., nephew and failed to his wife had proceeding Judge Hereford, three-day 18, 1997, hearing but before filed a was response after the to during assigned who dire on the December first final day Jenkins's 3 of that The day the of first 10, 32 Circuit day of 1996. a On the e v i d e n t i a r y hearing, amended R u l e a her Rule to St. C l a i r the an t r i a l because voir conducted evidentiary hearing January t o a new filed a l l e g e d , among been murder v i c t i m s . postconviction William Jenkins i n w h i c h he entitled disclose 1996, 32 the State petition in 1101410 which i t a s s e r t e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t J e n k i n s ' s j u r o r - misconduct claim 3 2 . 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) and b e e n , b u t was was procedurally barred pursuant to Rules ( a ) ( 5 ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., b e c a u s e i t c o u l d have not, 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 . The t r i a l c o u r t conducted the remainder of the e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on J a n u a r y 20 and 21, On denying December 31, relief petition. The 1997. 1997, the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an order on t h e c l a i m s c o n t a i n e d i n J e n k i n s ' s R u l e trial court concluded, i n part, that Jenkins's c l a i m t h a t J u r o r L.V.'s f a i l u r e t o d i s c l o s e d u r i n g v o i r that her nephew and his wife had been Ala. R. not, r a i s e d at t r i a l On February dire murdered p r o c e d u r a l l y b a r r e d pursuant to Rules 32.2(a)(3) C r i m . P., and o r on d i r e c t 27, 2004, affirmed the court's petition, holding that the appeal. Court denial of was (a)(5), b e c a u s e t h i s c l a i m c o u l d have b e e n , b u t trial 32 was 2 of Criminal Jenkins's Appeals Rule 32 Jenkins's juror-misconduct claim was 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., b e c a u s e i t was raised i n an u n t i m e l y amendment t o t h e o r i g i n a l R u l e 32 J e n k i n s s t a t e s t h a t f o l l o w i n g the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of this Rule 32 petition, the parties litigated the c o m p l e t e n e s s o f t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l and t h a t t h i s l i t i g a t i o n was p r e s i d e d o v e r by Judge R o b e r t E. A u s t i n . 2 4 1101410 p e t i t i o n and d i d n o t r e l a t e b a c k t o t h e o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n . J e n k i n s v. S t a t e , 972 So. 2d 111 April 8, Appeals' 2005, this Court ( A l a . Crim. reversed the Court amended p e t i t i o n , of C r i m i n a l p r e s e n t e d f o r the f i r s t time i n h i s c o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t r e l a t e back t o h i s o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n . " So. 2d 159, 165 ( A l a . 2005) . Ex p a r t e J e n k i n s , 972 T h i s C o u r t remanded t h e c a s e f o r proceedings. On November 23, 2005, 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 a f f i r m e d the t r i a l juror-misconduct (Ala. On j u d g m e n t " i n s o f a r as [ t h a t c o u r t ] h e l d t h a t J e n k i n s ' s c l a i m of j u r o r misconduct, further App. 2004) . See Crim. court's order denying claim. App. Jenkins 2005). In v. relief State, affirming on 972 the again Jenkins's So. trial 2d 165 court's d e c i s i o n , t h a t c o u r t noted t h a t J e n k i n s had f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t any e v i d e n c e his d u r i n g the e v i d e n t i a r y hearing juror-misconduct c l a i m was to raise 972 On 2d a t 167-68. Jenkins's p e t i t i o n On May habeas May i t at t r i a l 18, 2007, this o r on Court appeal. denied f o r a w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i . 15, 2008, J e n k i n s corpus that n o t known and c o u l d n o t have been d i s c o v e r e d i n time So. indicating pursuant filed t o 28 a petition U.S.C. 5 § 2254 f o r a w r i t of i n the United 1101410 States District Court f o r the Northern D i s t r i c t The f e d e r a l h a b e a s c o r p u s p e t i t i o n misconduct o f Alabama. included Jenkins's juror- claim. Subsequent to Jenkins's filing his habeas corpus p e t i t i o n , t h i s C o u r t i s s u e d i t s d e c i s i o n i n Ex p a r t e B u r g e s s , 21 So. 3d 746 reviewed ( A l a . 2008). the Court I n Ex p a r t e B u r g e s s , of Criminal Appeals' this Court affirmance of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s summary d i s m i s s a l o f B u r g e s s ' s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , i n w h i c h he r a i s e d a j u r o r - m i s c o n d u c t c l a i m , on t h e b a s i s that t h a t c l a i m c o u l d have 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 appeal. See R u l e 32.2(a)(3) and (a)(5). In r e v e r s i n g the C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s ' judgment, t h i s C o u r t r e a f f i r m e d t h e principle (Ala. (Ala. established i n S t a t e v. Freeman, C r i m . App. 1 9 9 2 ) , 2000), misconduct that claim a and Ex p a r t e P i e r c e , Rule relating 32 petitioner to a juror's 605 So. 2d 1258 851 So. 2d 606 raising failure juror- to disclose i n f o r m a t i o n d u r i n g v o i r d i r e may overcome t h e p r o c e d u r a l b a r s of Rules 32.2(a)(3) and (a)(5), A l a . R. Crim. P., i f that p e t i t i o n e r " ' e s t a b l i s h e [ s ] t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was n o t known, and c o u l d n o t 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 time to raise the issue i n a motion 6 f o r new trial or i n o r on 1101410 appeal.'" Ex parte p a r t e P i e r c e , 851 On October Burgess, So. 1, 21 2d a t 616 2008, 3 So. 3d at 751 (quoting Ex (emphasis added)) Jenkins filed a second Rule 32 p e t i t i o n b a s e d on t h e a u t h o r i t y o f Ex p a r t e B u r g e s s i n w h i c h he realleged his petition, juror-misconduct Jenkins "incorporate[d] [previous] evidentiary misconduct claim. hearing Jenkins's assigned to yet another claim. ... In the Rule c i r c u i t judge Rule on 32 32 of record conducted" second his the his juror- petition Judge James E. was Hill, Jr. On O c t o b e r 31, 2008, t h e S t a t e a n s w e r e d t h e p e t i t i o n moved to dismiss procedurally Ala. R. Crim. barred P., i t , arguing pursuant and to that Rules t h a t , based hearing, Jenkins's juror-misconduct The State f u r t h e r argued that on the 32.2(b) the and without Jenkins's was 32.2(c), previous c l a i m was because petition and Rule 32 merit. claim was On O c t o b e r 2, 2008, J e n k i n s moved t h e f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o s t a y h i s h a b e a s p r o c e e d i n g s t o a l l o w him t o f i l e a n o t h e r R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n r e a s s e r t i n g h i s juror-misconduct c l a i m i n l i g h t o f t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n Ex p a r t e B u r g e s s . On November 12, 2008, t h e f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d J e n k i n s ' s motion t o s t a y h i s habeas p r o c e e d i n g s . 3 7 1101410 procedurally barred dismissed pursuant a n d was t o Rule without On November 5, 2008, J e n k i n s time to f i l e dismiss. a reply i t should A l a . R. C r i m . 32.7(d), merit, P. moved t h e t r i a l to the State's On November 2 1 , 2008, b e f o r e r u l e d on J e n k i n s ' s request, court order a proposed petition. The denying State's 1 9 9 1 , as well as the t r i a l Jenkins's proposed order to the record proposed order purported findings testify d i r e proceedings Jenkins State using second Rule numerous from J e n k i n s ' s on appeal 32 trial following i n 1996 a n d 1997. whom Judge H i l l a detailed had never seen analysis of the v o i r at t r i a l . s t a t e s that the proposed order first-class Thus, he s u r m i s e s closed to the t r i a l t o make f a c t u a l a n d c r e d i b i l i t y regarding witnesses and a l s o c o n t a i n e d court had contained Jenkins's i n i t i a l p o s t c o n v i c t i o n proceedings The court f o r and motion t o the State submitted c i t a t i o n s t o t h e r e c o r d on d i r e c t a p p e a l in answer be on F r i d a y , November that, given f o r t h e weekend, member o f i t s s t a f f mail was f i l e d b y t h e that 2 1 , 2008. the courthouse the e a r l i e s t the t r i a l w o u l d be court c o u l d have s e e n t h e p r o p o s e d o r d e r have b e e n t h e f o l l o w i n g Monday, November 24, 2008. 8 or a would Jenkins 1101410 notes t h a t the S t a t e ' s p r o p o s e d o r d e r was C l a i r C i r c u i t Court clerk's office mailed in Ashville. to the St. However, he s t a t e s t h a t "upon i n f o r m a t i o n and b e l i e f " Judge H i l l was not sitting 24, but was in Ashville instead s i t t i n g on Monday November in Pell C i t y on t h a t date. 2008, Judge H i l l trial court denying was sitting signed the On i n the A s h v i l l e State's 2008, proposed November 25, courthouse; order the that day, a l l r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f w i t h o u t m a k i n g any c h a n g e s t o i t . J e n k i n s s t a t e s t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t ' s records are kept i n the when circuit court court files Jenkins contends clerk's are "checked that before n e i t h e r Judge H i l l nor from office the clerk's office and t h a t a l o g i s kept out" by signing court the his court personnel. proposed any member o f h i s s t a f f files of order, "checked out" containing the t r a n s c r i p t s and p l e a d i n g s f r o m h i s t r i a l and t h e f i r s t R u l e 32 proceedings. On December 3, dismissing 2008 Jenkins's court granted second Jenkins's after Rule s i g n i n g the proposed 32 petition previously filed -- motion the trial court signed the proposed order 9 trial f o r time r e p l y t o t h e S t a t e ' s a n s w e r and m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s . the order denying to Although Jenkins's 1101410 s e c o n d R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n on November 25, 2008, J e n k i n s d i d n o t r e c e i v e n o t i c e of the t r i a l 2008. his I n t h e meantime, J e n k i n s , response t o the State's motion f o r leave t o f i l e his Jenkins petition. 15, 2008, filed an amended p e t i t i o n filed f o r r e l i e f from and a m o t i o n t o s e t a for court Jenkins proposed urged "Emergency briefing Motion the State's an a once he r e c e i v e d n o t i c e t h a t t h e t r i a l Reconsideration" signed on December 23, a n s w e r and m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , c o n v i c t i o n s and s e n t e n c e s , schedule. had c o u r t ' s a c t i o n u n t i l December order the t r i a l denying court h i s Rule 32 i n h i s motion f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n to act q u i c k l y , b e l i e v i n g that the t r i a l court would 2008. lose jurisdiction However, i t appears because, although the of h i s case that those the t r i a l State's proposed order actually enter that order f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal December 29, 2008. On e n t e r e d an o r d e r s t a t i n g court on December assertions signed were the order 25, erroneous adopting on November 25, 2008, i t d i d n o t until January 2, 2009. Jenkins t o 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 on January 9, 2009, the trial court t h a t i t had l o s t j u r i s d i c t i o n of the case t o the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals. 10 1101410 The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s a f f i r m e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s dismissal of J e n k i n s ' s Rule [Ms. CR-08-0490, A u g u s t App. 2011) . 32 26, This p e t i t i o n petition. 2011] J e n k i n s v. So. 3d State (Ala. Crim. f o r a w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i followed. Standard of Review "'This Court c a s e s de 2004) reviews pure q u e s t i o n s of law n o v o . ' " Ex p a r t e Morrow, 915 ( q u o t i n g Ex parte Key, 890 So. in 2d 539, criminal 541 (Ala. 1059 (Ala. So. 2d 1056, Court of Criminal 2003)). Discussion Jenkins contends mischaracterized Ingram, of and s u p r a , and this case. convicted the m i s a p p l i e d the holdings in Appeals Ex parte Ex p a r t e S c o t t , s u p r a , t o t h e u n i q u e I n Ex i n 1995 that of p a r t e Ingram, capital the murder and defendant, was facts who sentenced was to d e a t h , f i l e d a R u l e 32, A l a . R. C r i m . P., p e t i t i o n on F e b r u a r y 1, 2002, s e e k i n g r e l i e f f r o m h i s c o n v i c t i o n and s e n t e n c e . March 2002, petition April and 2002, the State f i l e d a motion the a response for a partial defendant filed a to the defendant's summary d i s m i s s a l . response to In the S t a t e ' s m o t i o n f o r a p a r t i a l summary d i s m i s s a l and an amended R u l e 11 In 32 1101410 petition, i n w h i c h he a l s o r e q u e s t e d f u l l d i s c o v e r y and to a l l o w him t o h i r e c e r t a i n e x p e r t s . responded to the defendant's funds I n J u l y 2002, t h e S t a t e motions and amended Rule 32 petition. On May the 20, 2004, t h e S t a t e f i l e d a p r o p o s e d o r d e r d e n y i n g defendant's respond to Rule the 32 State's petition. The proposed defendant order. not Jerry Judge did L. F i e l d i n g , who h a d p r e s i d e d o v e r t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c a p i t a l - m u r d e r trial i n 1995, pending, and retired the case w h i l e the was Rule assigned 32 to proceedings Judge were William E. Hollingsworth. On June 8, 2004, Judge H o l l i n g s w o r t h e n t e r e d an d e n y i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . The verbatim S t a t e on 2004, the the "Order" proposed only modifications r a t h e r than contained Fielding's order "Proposed filed by the being that Order" Judge adopted May the heading and Judge H o l l i n g s w o r t h ' s s i g n a t u r e signature. order order 20, stated the s i g n a t u r e rather Hollingsworth did than not page Judge hold h e a r i n g o r a s t a t u s c o n f e r e n c e on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p e t i t i o n a and p e n d i n g m o t i o n s and d i d n o t e x p l i c i t l y a d d r e s s t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s pending motions i n t h e June 8 o r d e r . On 12 J u l y 21, 2004, Judge 1101410 H o l l i n g s w o r t h e n t e r e d an o r d e r p u r p o r t i n g t o r e s c i n d t h e June 8 o r d e r . On issued July an 21 S e p t e m b e r 7, 2004, t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l order d i r e c t i n g order, holding the that trial the Appeals court to set aside i t s trial court had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o m o d i f y i t s June 8 o r d e r 30 d a y s a f t e r lost entering it. The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s a f f i r m e d t h e summary d e n i a l of So. the defendant's 3d 1094 R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2006). See The I n g r a m v. S t a t e , defendant 51 petitioned t h i s Court f o r a w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i , which t h i s Court granted t h e p e t i t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e June 8 o r d e r r e p r e s e n t e d t h e a c t u a l f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e t r i a l court. In r e v e r s i n g the C o u r t of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s ' a f f i r m a n c e o f the trial petition, court's t h i s Court order denying the defendant's Rule stated: "It i s a x i o m a t i c t h a t an o r d e r g r a n t i n g o r d e n y i n g r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 32, A l a . R. C r i m . P., must be an o r d e r o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . I t must be a m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e court. Although no authority other than the c r e a t i o n o f t h e j u d i c i a l b r a n c h and t h e d e l e g a t i o n of j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i t y t o the c i r c u i t c o u r t s o f t h i s S t a t e i n t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n , A l a . C o n s t . 1901, Amend. No. 328, § 6.01(a) (now § 1 3 9 ( a ) , A l a . C o n s t . 1901 (Off.Recomp.)), i s necessary t o support t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n , t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f R u l e s 32.1 through 32.10, A l a . R . C r i m . P., a l s o p r o v i d e s u p p o r t . Among 13 32 1101410 o t h e r t h i n g s , R u l e 32.7(d) s t a t e s t h a t ' [ i f ] the c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s ' c e r t a i n m a t t e r s t o be t r u e , i t may summarily dismiss the petition; Rule 32.9(c) p r o v i d e s t h a t ' [ i ] f the c o u r t f i n d s i n f a v o r of the p e t i t i o n e r , i t s h a l l e n t e r an a p p r o p r i a t e o r d e r ' ; R u l e 3 2 . 9 ( d ) s t a t e s t h a t ' [ t ] h e c o u r t s h a l l make s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s of f a c t r e l a t i n g t o each m a t e r i a l i s s u e o f f a c t p r e s e n t e d ' ; and R u l e 32.10 r e f e r s t o 'the d e c i s i o n o f a c i r c u i t c o u r t . ' " "... [T]he g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t , where a t r i a l c o u r t does i n f a c t a d o p t t h e p r o p o s e d o r d e r as i t s own, deference i s owed t o t h a t o r d e r i n t h e same measure as any o t h e r o r d e r o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . I n Dobyne v. S t a t e , 805 So. 2d 733, 741 (Ala. Crim. App. 2 0 0 0 ) , 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 s t a t e d : "'"'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 i s s u b j e c t to c r i t i c i s m , the 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 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 v e r b a t i m , the f i n d i n g s are those o f t h e c o u r t and may be r e v e r s e d o n l y i f c l e a r l y erroneous.'"' "805 So. 2d a t 741 (quoting o t h e r cases; emphasis a d d e d ) . I n McGahee v. S t a t e , 885 So. 2d 191, 229-30 (Ala. C r i m . App. 2003), the Court of Criminal A p p e a l s s t a t e d t h a t 'even when a t r i a l c o u r t a d o p t s v e r b a t i m a p a r t y ' 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 l a w a r e t h o s e o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t and t h e y may be r e v e r s e d o n l y i f t h e y are c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . ' C f . U n i t e d S t a t e s v. E l Paso N a t u r a l Gas Co. , 376 U.S. 651, 656, 84 S.Ct. 1044, 12 L. E d . 2 d 12 (1964) ( e x p r e s s i n g d i s a p p r o v a l o f t h e 'mechanical' adoption of f i n d i n g s of f a c t prepared by a p a r t y , b u t s t a t i n g t h a t s u c h f i n d i n g s a r e f o r m a l l y t h o s e o f t h e t r i a l j u d g e and 'are n o t t o be rejected out-of-hand'). 14 1101410 "In t h i s unusual c a s e , h o w e v e r , we ca n n o t ca conclude t h a t the above-stated 'general r u l e ' i s a p p l i c a b l e . That i s , d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t the t r i a l j u d g e s i g n e d t h e June 8 o r d e r , we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s i n t h a t o r d e r a r e i n f a c t those of the c o u r t i t s e l f . "The June 8 o r d e r b e g i n s as follows: " ' H a v i n g c o n s i d e r e d t h e f i r s t amended R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n p r e s e n t e d t o t h e C o u r t , t h e S t a t e o f 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 Alabama's motions t o d i s m i s s , the e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l , and t h e e v e n t s w i t h i n the p e r s o n a l knowledge o f the 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 o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w 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 Ingram's f i r s t amended R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . ' " ( E m p h a s i s added.) A f t e r a r e n d i t i o n o f t h e f a c t s o f t h e c a s e , t h e June 8 o r d e r s t a t e s : "'The f i n d i n g s by 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 I n g r a m v. S t a t e , 779 So. 2d 1225 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) , ] g u i d e t h e Court i n i t s r e s o l u t i o n of the issues p r e s e n t e d i n t h e f i r s t amended R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . The C o u r t i s a l s o r e l y i n g on t h e t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t where n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t t h e C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n , t h i s C o u r t p r e s i d e d o v e r Ingram's c a p i t a l m u r d e r 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 . ' " ( E m p h a s i s added.) 15 1101410 "The obvious problem with the emphasized p o r t i o n s o f t h e a b o v e - q u o t e d p a s s a g e s f r o m t h e June 8 order i s that Judge Fielding, not Judge H o l l i n g s w o r t h , p r e s i d e d over Ingram's c a p i t a l - m u r d e r t r i a l . Although minor f a c t u a l e r r o r s understandably f i n d t h e i r way i n t o o r d e r s d r a f t e d b y t r i a l c o u r t s i n h a n d l i n g b u s y d o c k e t s , an e r r o r as t o w h e t h e r t h e judge i n fact s a t as t h e t r i a l judge in a c a p i t a l - m u r d e r t r i a l a n d i s b a s i n g h i s d e c i s i o n on personal observations and personal knowledge a c q u i r e d b y d o i n g so i s t h e most m a t e r i a l a n d obvious of e r r o r s . "Ingram contends t h a t t h e n a t u r e o f t h e s e e r r o r s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e t r i a l judge d i d n o t even r e a d t h e proposed order s u b m i t t e d by t h e S t a t e b e f o r e s i g n i n g and i s s u i n g i t as t h e o r d e r o f t h e c o u r t a n d t h a t t h e June 8 o r d e r c a n n o t r e p r e s e n t t h e a c t u a l a n d independent f i n d i n g s of the t r i a l c o u r t . Ingram f u r t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t Judge H o l l i n g s w o r t h ' s a t t e m p t i n t h e J u l y 21 o r d e r t o r e s c i n d t h e June 8 o r d e r a n d t o r e c u s e h i m s e l f f r o m t h e c a s e c o n f i r m s t h a t Judge H o l l i n g s w o r t h r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e June 8 o r d e r was f a t a l l y flawed. " D e s p i t e t h e e r r o n e o u s s t a t e m e n t s i n t h e June 8 order, the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals a f f i r m e d the judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n s u m m a r i l y d i s m i s s i n g Ingram's R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n b a s e d upon t h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t e m p l o y s i n e v a l u a t i n g 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 o f l a w e v e n when those f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s a r e adopted v e r b a t i m f r o m t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y . The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s q u o t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g p a s s a g e f r o m Dobyne: "'"'"While the practice of adopting the state's proposed findings and conclusions 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 adopts proposed f indings verbatim, the f i n d i n g s are those 16 1101410 of t h e c o u r t and may be r e v e r s e d o n l y i f c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . ... " " ' " ' B e l l v. S t a t e , 593 So. 2d 123, 126 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 593 So. 2d 123 ( A l a . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 504 U.S. 991, 112 S. C t . 2981, 119 L. Ed.2d 599 (1992).'"' "... The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s c o n c l u d e d t h a t 'the f a c t s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s [June 8] o r d e r were n o t c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s ' and t h a t t h e r e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t was due t o be a f f i r m e d . I n g r a m I I [Ingram v. S t a t e , 51 So. 3d 1094, 1100 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 6 ) ] . "The S t a t e e c h o e s t h e r e a s o n i n g o f 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 , 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 how any o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s were c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . The S t a t e f u r t h e r contends t h a t the erroneous statements i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s June 8 o r d e r a r e h a r m l e s s because, i t argues, the s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s i n the o r d e r as t o Ingram's c l a i m s were n o t b a s e d upon 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 . ' 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 the i n d i v i d u a l c l a i m s i n the R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n b a s e d on h i s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e c l a i m s were n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y p l e a d e d , were not s u p p o r t e d by t h e t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t , were d e c i d e d a d v e r s e l y t o I n g r a m on d i r e c t a p p e a l , o r were procedurally defaulted.' "Though t h e ' c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s ' s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w may a p p l y i n c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e t r i a l c o u r t has a d o p t e d , as i t s own, t h e p r o p o s e d o r d e r o f t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y , t h e a n a l y s i s p r o f f e r e d by b o t h 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 and t h e S t a t e f a i l s t o admit of the most fundamental and the first r e q u i r e m e n t : t h a t t h e o r d e r and t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s i n such order are i n f a c t those of the t r i a l court. 17 1101410 " " A c c o r d i n g l y , a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s must be c a r e f u l t o e v a l u a t e a c l a i m t h a t a p r e p a r e d o r d e r d r a f t e d by t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y and a d o p t e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t verbatim does n o t reflect the independent and i m p a r t i a l f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e trial c o u r t . I n B e l l v. S t a t e , 593 So. 2d 123 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) t h e c a s e 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 q u o t e d i n Ingram I I f o r the ' c l e a r l y erroneous' s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w t h e Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals observed: "'The t r i a l c o u r t d i d adopt v e r b a t i m the proposed order tendered by the state; h o w e v e r , f r o m our r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d , we are convinced that the findings and c o n c l u s i o n s are those of the t r i a l c o u r t . 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 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 and gave t h e a p p e l l a n t c o n s i d e r a b l e l e e w a y i n p r e s e n t i n g evidence to support h i s claims.' " B e l l , 593 So. 2d a t 126 ( e m p h a s i s added) . The undisputed facts i n the p r e s e n t case obviously prevent a s i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n here. "We a r e f o r c e d by t h e n a t u r e o f t h e e r r o r s p r e s e n t i n t h e June 8 o r d e r t o r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t of the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals. In the s i m p l e s t terms, the patently erroneous nature of the statements r e g a r d i n g the t r i a l judge's 'personal knowledge' and observations of Ingram's c a p i t a l - m u r d e r t r i a l u n d e r m i n e s any c o n f i d e n c e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' 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 of law are the product of the trial judge's i n d e p e n d e n t j u d g m e n t and t h a t t h e June 8 order reflects the f i n d i n g s and conclusions of that judge." Ex p a r t e I n g r a m , 51 So. 3d a t 1122-25 18 (footnote omitted). 1101410 I n Ex p a r t e Scott, the t r i a l court adopted the State's a n s w e r as i t s o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . concluded that the t r i a l court erred i n adopting This Court the State's a n s w e r as i t s o r d e r b e c a u s e a p a r t y ' s a n s w e r i s i n f e c t e d w i t h " a d v e r s a r i a l z e a l " and t h a t " v e r b a t i m adoption of the State's a n s w e r t o [a] R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n as i t s o r d e r , by i t s nature, violates this i n Ex p a r t e Ingram," requires that a t r i a l and Court's holding court's order i m p a r t i a l findings of the t r i a l reflect which the independent court. So. 3d a t . J e n k i n s ' s argument as t o t h i s i s s u e i s t w o f o l d : F i r s t , he contends t h a t by u p h o l d i n g the t r i a l court's order here the C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s so l i m i t e d t h e h o l d i n g s o f Ex p a r t e I n g r a m a n d Ex p a r t e Scott that, unless a exactly like factual those scenario cases, Second, court the scenarios presents presented i n t h e p e t i t i o n e r w o u l d n o t be e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f . he c o n t e n d s could a petitioner not that have c r e d i b i l i t y determinations, the facts made the suggest that the t r i a l independent and c o n c l u s i o n s t h e order findings, purports i t made i n t h e s h o r t t i m e t h a t e l a p s e d b e t w e e n r e c e i v i n g t h e proposed order and s i g n i n g i t . stated: 19 The C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s 1101410 "Jenkins argues t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r o n e o u s l y adopted the S t a t e ' s proposed order denying relief. 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 c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s a d o p t i o n of the S t a t e ' s proposed order v i o l a t e d h i s right to 'independent findings of fact and c o n c l u s i o n s of law.' ( J e n k i n s ' s b r i e f , a t 15.) " " I n Ex p a r t e Ingram, 51 So. 3d 1119, 1122 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t r e a f f i r m e d 'the g e n e r a l r u l e ... t h a t , where a t r i a l c o u r t does i n f a c t adopt the [ p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y ' s ] proposed order as i t s own, d e f e r e n c e i s owed t o t h a t o r d e r i n t h e same measure as any o t h e r o r d e r o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . ' The C o u r t went on t o s t a t e t h a t ' [ i ] n t h i s u n u s u a l case, [ i t c o u l d not] conclude t h a t the a b o v e - s t a t e d " g e n e r a l r u l e " was a p p l i c a b l e ' b e c a u s e t h e a d o p t e d order contained i n d i s p u t a b l y f a l s e statements. Id. a t 1123-24. S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e j u d g e who s i g n e d t h e S t a t e ' s p r o p o s e d o r d e r s t a t e d t h a t he had p r e s i d e d o v e r I n g r a m ' s t r i a l and h a d p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e o f t h e t r i a l p r o c e e d i n g s when, i n f a c t , a n o t h e r j u d g e had p r e s i d e d o v e r t h e t r i a l . I d . The Supreme C o u r t t h e n h e l d t h a t 'the p a t e n t l y e r r o n e o u s n a t u r e o f t h e statements r e g a r d i n g the t r i a l judge's "personal knowledge" and observations of Ingram's c a p i t a l - m u r d e r t r i a l u n d e r m i n e s any c o n f i d e n c e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' 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 of law are the product of the trial judge's i n d e p e n d e n t j u d g m e n t and t h a t t h e ... o r d e r r e f l e c t s t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h a t j u d g e . ' Id. at 1125 ( e m p h a s i s i n t h e o r i g i n a l ) . Because the order e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n s were n o t t h o s e o f t h e j u d g e , t h e Supreme C o u r t r e v e r s e d t h e d i s m i s s a l o f I n g r a m ' s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . Id. " L a t e r , i n Ex p a r t e S c o t t , [Ms. 1091275, M a r c h 18, 2011] So. 3d , ( A l a . 2011), the A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n a d o p t i n g v e r b a t i m as i t s o r d e r t h e S t a t e ' s a n s w e r t o a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . A f t e r r e a f f i r m i n g i t s 20 1101410 e a r l i e r d e c i s i o n i n Ex p a r t e I n g r a m , t h e C o u r t h e l d that i t c o n s t i t u t e s error for a c i r c u i t court to adopt the p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y ' s answer because an a n s w e r ' i s i n f e c t e d w i t h ... a d v e r s a r i a l z e a l [and] b e c a u s e an a n s w e r i s a p l e a d i n g t h a t n e v e r i s prepared w i t h the pretense of i m p a r t i a l i t y . ' Id. B e c a u s e a p a r t y ' s answer ' i s i n f e c t e d w i t h ... a d v e r s a r i a l z e a l , ' the 'verbatim adoption of the S t a t e ' s answer t o [a] R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n as i t s o r d e r , by i t s n a t u r e , v i o l a t e s [ t h e C o u r t ' s ] h o l d i n g i n Ex p a r t e I n g r a m [ 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 must] r e f l e c t t h e i n d e p e n d e n t and i m p a r t i a l f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of the t r i a l c o u r t . ' I d . " U n l i k e Ex p a r t e I n g r a m , t h e c i r c u i t court's o r d e r i n t h i s c a s e does n o t c o n t a i n s t a t e m e n t s t h a t a r e ' p a t e n t l y e r r o n e o u s . ' 51 So. 3d a t 1125. Also, u n l i k e Ex p a r t e S c o t t , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t a d o p t e d t h e S t a t e ' s p r o p o s e d o r d e r as o p p o s e d t o an answer ' i n f e c t e d w i t h ... a d v e r s a r i a l z e a l . ' So. 3d a t . F u r t h e r , the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s order p u r p o r t s to c o n s t i t u t e the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s independent judgment. For i n s t a n c e , i n i t s order denying r e l i e f , the circuit court stated that i t had 'thoroughly r e v i e w e d and c o n s i d e r e d ' J e n k i n s ' s c u r r e n t R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , the S t a t e ' s answer, the e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on J e n k i n s ' s f i r s t R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , and t h e r e c o r d on d i r e c t a p p e a l , p r i o r to d i s m i s s i n g the c u r r e n t p e t i t i o n . B a s e d on t h e s e f a c t s , t h i s C o u r t h o l d s t h a t 'the g e n e r a l r u l e ... t h a t , where a t r i a l c o u r t does i n f a c t a d o p t t h e [ p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y ' s ] p r o p o s e d o r d e r as i t s own, d e f e r e n c e i s owed t o t h a t o r d e r i n t h e same measure as any o t h e r o r d e r o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , ' Ex p a r t e I n g r a m , 51 So. 3d a t 1122, a p p l i e s , and no e r r o r r e s u l t e d from the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s a d o p t i o n of the State's proposed order. " did " N e x t , J e n k i n s ' s argument t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t n o t make i n d e p e n d e n t f i n d i n g s o f f a c t s o r 21 1101410 c o n c l u s i o n s o f law because i t l a c k e d s u f f i c i e n t time t o r e v i e w a l l t h e r e c o r d s , p l e a d i n g s , and t h e 24page p r o p o s e d o r d e r i n the s h o r t time between 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 t h e o r d e r 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 i d l e d u r i n g t h e 55 d a y s b e t w e e n when J e n k i n s f i l e d h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n and when t h e c i r c u i t court dismissed the p e t i t i o n . Jenkins f i l e d h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n on O c t o b e r 1, 2008. The S t a t e f i l e d i t s answer and m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s J e n k i n s ' s p e t i t i o n on O c t o b e r 31, 2008. The c i r c u i t c o u r t signed i t s order denying r e l i e f on November 25, 2008. A l m o s t two months e l a p s e d b e t w e e n t h e f i l i n g of Jenkins's petition and t h e c i r c u i t court's issuing i t s order. Contrary to Jenkins's assertion, 55 d a y s p r o v i d e d p l e n t y o f t i m e f o r t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o i n d e p e n d e n t l y r e v i e w t h e r e c o r d s and t h e p l e a d i n g s f i l e d by t h e p a r t i e s . " Jenkins, So. 3d a t (footnote Jenkins p o i n t s to the f o l l o w i n g trial judge signed r e a d i n g and v e r i f y i n g of the t r i a l the proposed omitted). f a c t s t o suggest that the order without i t and t h a t t h e o r d e r carefully i s not a product c o u r t ' s independent judgment: 1. The j u d g e who p r e s i d e d o v e r t h e s u c c e s s i v e R u l e 32 p r o c e e d i n g s was new t o J e n k i n s ' s c a s e and was u n f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e c a s e , i n c l u d i n g t h e c a p i t a l m u r d e r t r i a l a n d t h e i n i t i a l R u l e 32 p r o c e e d i n g s ; 2. A l t h o u g h t h e j u d g e may have been aware o f t h e few p l e a d i n g s filed i n the s u c c e s s i v e Rule 32 p r o c e e d i n g s , a t no p o i n t d u r i n g t h e b r i e f p e n d e n c y of this case d i d the judge review the trial transcripts, the initial Rule 32 hearing t r a n s c r i p t s , or the p r i o r p l e a d i n g s i n t h i s case; 22 1101410 3. The j u d g e r e c e i v e d , u n s o l i c i t e d , a p r o p o s e d order from the S t a t e . The o r d e r was 24 p a g e s l o n g and c o n t a i n e d more t h a n 30 c i t a t i o n s t o t h e t r i a l transcript or the i n i t i a l Rule 32-proceeding transcript. The order made credibility determinations t h a t were a d v e r s e to Jenkins, p u r p o r t e d t o deny a l l r e l i e f i n t h e c a s e , a n d n o t e d t h a t J e n k i n s w o u l d have 42 d a y s f r o m t h e s i g n i n g o f the order t o f i l e a n o t i c e o f appeal; 4. W i t h i n h o u r s o f r e c e i v i n g t h e S t a t e ' s o r d e r , the judge s i g n e d i t w i t h o u t c h a n g i n g a word; 5. One week a f t e r a d o p t i n g v e r b a t i m t h e S t a t e ' s proposed order, t h e same trial judge granted Jenkins's p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d motion t o respond t o the S t a t e ' s answer a n d m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , ordering J e n k i n s t o r e s p o n d w i t h i n 45 d a y s . The t r i a l j u d g e e n t e r e d a n d s i g n e d t h e o r d e r i n h i s own h a n d w r i t i n g on t h e " c a s e a c t i o n summary," i m m e d i a t e l y b e l o w a c l e r k ' s e n t r y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e case had a l r e a d y been d i s m i s s e d . C r u c i a l t o J e n k i n s ' s argument t h a t t h e t r i a l judge s i g n e d the proposed order verifying signed i t s contents the contention the t r i a l without order reading i t carefully and w i t h o u t i s h i s contention that the t r i a l within hours i s b a s e d on J e n k i n s ' s of receiving "belief" i t . judge This that the e a r l i e s t j u d g e c o u l d have s e e n t h e p r o p o s e d o r d e r w o u l d have b e e n T u e s d a y , November 25, 2008, t h e d a t e t h e o r d e r was s i g n e d in A s h v i l l e , 4 b e c a u s e as e x p l a i n e d a b o v e , t h e t r i a l j u d g e was A s s t a t e d a b o v e , t h e S t a t e ' s p r o p o s e d o r d e r was m a i l e d on F r i d a y November 2 1 , 2008, t o t h e c o u r t h o u s e i n A s h v i l l e . 4 23 1101410 sitting in Pell City the previous day. Also crucial J e n k i n s ' s argument i s h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l not reviewed the proceedings. Jenkins's records Neither argument a r e they from h i s p r i o r of these crucial f o u n d e d upon record, and Nothing i n the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s the t r i a l facts Additionally, judge had Rule 32 and contentions contained amount t o o n l y s p e c u l a t i o n and when t h e t r i a l t h e p r o p o s e d o r d e r o r where he was 25, 2008. trial to in to the conjecture. judge r e c e i v e d s i t t i n g on November 24 n o t h i n g i n the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s and that judge d i d not review the t r a n s c r i p t s from J e n k i n s ' s p r i o r proceedings. I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t t h i s Court cannot consider arguments founded in record. E t h e r t o n v. C i t y o f Homewood, 700 on matters not contained So. 2d 1374 the (Ala. 1997). The circumstances of this case differ from the c i r c u m s t a n c e s p r e s e n t e d i n Ex p a r t e I n g r a m and Ex p a r t e S c o t t . In b o t h of those cases Court i t was clear from evidence t h a t t h e o r d e r s s i g n e d by t h e t r i a l regarding c l e a r from the statements the trial judge's 24 the In Ingram, c o n t a i n e d i n the "personal this c o u r t were n o t p r o d u c t of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s independent judgment. t h a t f a c t was before knowledge" order and 1101410 observations o f Ingram's c a p i t a l - m u r d e r trial when t h e judge s i g n i n g the proposed Rule 32 reside over Ingram's c a p i t a l - m u r d e r I n Ex p a r t e S c o t t , t h a t fact was clear from the trial. materials order d i d not trial before this Court, which c o n t a i n e d t h e S t a t e ' s r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g a d o p t e d by t h e c o u r t as i t s o r d e r . definitive indicates i n the that In t h i s record the court's independent In case, order or case, on judgment. Court was face the of the product of order that the trial 5 g r a n t i n g the p e t i t i o n this however, t h e r e i s n o t h i n g the i s not trial f o r w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i c o n c e r n e d by Jenkins's in this allegation that t h e t r i a l c o u r t had s i g n e d t h e p r o p o s e d o r d e r s u b m i t t e d by the State the without first carefully r e c o r d of the p r i o r proceedings. substantiated by the record. reviewing the order and T h i s a l l e g a t i o n has n o t b e e n Although the issue raised by J e n k i n s a s k s t h i s C o u r t t o remand t h i s c a s e f o r an evidentiary hearing as to the factual circumstances s u r r o u n d i n g the t r i a l c o u r t ' s s i g n i n g of the proposed order. T h i s , however, i s not c o n t e m p l a t e d by t h e d e c i s i o n s i n Ex p a r t e I n g r a m and Ex p a r t e S c o t t . J e n k i n s c i t e s t h i s C o u r t t o J e f f e r s o n v. U p t o n , U.S. , 130 S.Ct. 2217, 176 L.Ed. 2d 1032 ( 2 0 1 0 ) , i n s u p p o r t o f h i s r e q u e s t f o r a f u l l e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g on t h e i s s u e o f t h e p r o p o s e d o r d e r . However, J e f f e r s o n i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e because i t i n v o l v e d a f e d e r a l habeas p e t i t i o n i n w h i c h a f u l l e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g was p e r m i t t e d as t o t h e f a c t s p e r t i n e n t t o t h e h a b e a s a p p l i c a t i o n . 5 25 1101410 Jenkins i s a c l o s e one, w i t h o u t Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals' as to this during more, we must a g r e e w i t h t h e conclusion that Jenkins's i s s u e " [ a s s u m e s ] t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t was t h e 55 d a y s b e t w e e n when petition So. Jenkins 3d a t entitling Court's a parte Scott. idle h i s Rule 32 the p e t i t i o n . " . decision petitioner to today should relief A R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n e r any f a c t u a l scenario n o t be i n only s c e n a r i o s s i m i l a r t o those presented in filed a n d when t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d i s m i s s e d This argument those as factual i n Ex p a r t e I n g r a m a n d Ex w o u l d be e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f when t h e r e c o r d c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e s that the order before this Court s i g n e d by t h e t r i a l court denying p o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f i s not the product c o u r t ' s independent judgment. read See Ex p a r t e of the t r i a l Ingram. Conclusion On petition February 7, f o r a writ 2012, this of c e r t i o r a r i Court granted only as c h a l l e n g i n g the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals' trial court's order dismissing Jenkins's the bases t h a t the t r i a l proposed order, a n d we court held 26 t o the ground affirmance of the R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n adopted verbatim i n abeyance Jenkins's on the State's the other grounds 1101410 r a i s e d i n Jenkins's p e t i t i o n pending r e s o l u t i o n of t h i s issue. We now a f f i r m 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 ' j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t upholds proposed the t r i a l court's adoption of the State's o r d e r d e n y i n g J e n k i n s ' s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n ; remaining grounds we now deny the p e t i t i o n as t o t h e f o r a writ of certiorari. AFFIRMED AS TO GROUND ON WHICH CERTIORARI REVIEW WAS GRANTED; WRIT DENIED AS TO REMAINING GROUNDS. Malone, C.J., and Woodall, Stuart, P a r k e r , Murdock, and Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . Main and Wise, J J . , r e c u s e themselves.* * J u s t i c e M a i n a n d J u s t i c e W i s e were members o f 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 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 . 27
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.
