Title: Jenkins v. Alabama
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1101410
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: September 21, 2012

REL:09/21/2012 
Notice: T h i s 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 Reporter. 
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 of 
Decisions, 
Alabama 
A p p e l l a t e 
C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r 
Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 
((334) 
2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any 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 Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
SPECIAL TERM, 2012 
1101410 
Ex parte 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. 
State of 
Alabama) 
(St. C l a i r C i r c u i t Court, CC-89-68.61; 
Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-08-04 
90) 
BOLIN, 
J u s t i c e . 
Mark A l l e n J e n k i n s p e t i t i o n e d t h i s C o u r t f o r 
a w r i t o f 
c e r t i o r a r i , r a i s i n g a 
number o f 
grounds f o r c e r t i o r a r i r e v i e w . 
1101410 
T h i s C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e p e t i t i o n f o r t h e l i m i t e d purpose o f 
d e t e r m i n i n g whether 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 ' d e c i s i o n 
a f f i r m i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s v e r b a t i m a d o p t i o n o f t h e S t a t e ' s 
p r o p o s e d 
o r d e r 
d i s m i s s i n g 
J e n k i n s ' s 
p e t i t i o n 
f o r 
p o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 32, A l a . R. Crim. 
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 . 2010), and Ex p a r t e S c o t t , [Ms. 1091275, 
March 18, 2011] 
So. 3d 
( A l a . 2011) 
.
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 
counts o f murder made c a p i t a l because t h e murder was committed 
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 d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f a 
k i d n a p p i n g , 
see §§ 13A-5-40(a)(2) 
and 1 3 A - 5 - 4 0 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . 
Code 1975. 
By a v o t e o f 10-2, t h e j u r y recommended 
t h a t 
J e n k i n s be s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h . The 
t r i a l c o u r t a c c e p t e d t h e 
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 
c a p i t a l - m u r d e r c o n v i c t i o n s . 
Judge H.E. H o l l a d a y p r e s i d e d over 
the 
t r i a l . 
1 T h i s C o u r t 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 
i n the c e r t i o r a r i 
p e t i t i o n p e n d i n g t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h i s 
i s s u e . 
2 
1101410 
On 
F e b r u a r y 
28, 
1992, 
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 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 . 
See J e n k i n s v. 
S t a t e , 627 
So. 
2d 1034 
( A l a . Crim. App. 
1992) . 
On May 
28, 
1993, 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
a f f i r m e d the 
C o u r t 
of 
C r i m i n a l 
A p p e a l s ' 
d e c i s i o n . 
See Ex p a r t e J e n k i n s , 627 So. 2d 1054 
( A l a . 1993) . 
On March 28, 
1994, 
the U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t 
d e n i e d 
J e n k i n s ' s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i . See 
J e n k i n s v.  
Alabama, 511 U.S. 
1012 
(1994). 
On May 26, 1995, J e n k i n s f i l e d h i s f i r s t R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n 
i n the S t . C l a i r C i r c u i t C o u r t , i n which he a s s e r t e d numerous 
c l a i m s f o r r e l i e f . 
On November 26, 
1996, 
J e n k i n s 
f i l e d 
an 
amendment t o h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n i n which he a l l e g e d , among 
o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t he was 
e n t i t l e d t o a new 
t r i a l because a 
j u r o r , 
L.V., 
f a i l e d 
t o d i s c l o s e d u r i n g v o i r 
d i r e 
t h a t 
her 
nephew and h i s w i f e had been murder v i c t i m s . 
The 
R u l e 
32 
p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p r o c e e d i n g was 
a s s i g n e d t o S t . C l a i r 
C i r c u i t 
Judge W i l l i a m H e r e f o r d , 
who 
conducted 
the 
f i r s t 
day 
of 
a 
t h r e e - d a y 
e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g 
on December 
10, 
1996. 
On 
J a n u a r y 
18, 
1997, 
a f t e r 
the 
f i r s t 
day 
of the e v i d e n t i a r y 
h e a r i n g but b e f o r e the 
f i n a l day of the h e a r i n g , the 
S t a t e 
f i l e d 
a response 
t o J e n k i n s ' s amended R u l e 
32 
p e t i t i o n 
i n 
3 
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 -
m i s c o n d u c t 
c l a i m was 
p r o c e d u r a l l y b a r r e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e s 
3 2 . 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) and ( a ) ( 5 ) , A l a . R. Crim. P., because i t c o u l d have 
been, but was n o t , r a i s e d a t t r i a l or on d i r e c t a p p e a l . 
The 
t r i a l c o u r t c o n d u c t e d 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, 
1997. 
On December 31, 1997, 
the 
t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r 
d e n y i n g 
r e l i e f on the 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 
32 
p e t i t i o n . 
The 
t r i a l c o u r t c o n c l u d e d , i n p a r t , t h a t J e n k i n s ' 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 
d i r e 
t h a t 
her 
nephew 
and 
h i s 
w i f e 
had 
been 
murdered 
was 
p r o c e d u r a l l y b a r r e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e s 3 2 . 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) and 
( a ) ( 5 ) , 
A l a . R. Crim. P., because t h i s c l a i m c o u l d have been, but was 
not, 
r a i s e d a t t r i a l o r on d i r e c t a p p e a l .
2 
On 
F e b r u a r y 
27, 
2004, 
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 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
d e n i a l 
of 
J e n k i n s ' s R u l e 
32 
p e t i t i o n , h o l d i n g t h a t 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 
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. Crim. P., because i t 
was 
r a i s e d i n an u n t i m e l y amendment t o the o r i g i n a l R u l e 
32 
2 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 
t h i s 
R u l e 
32 
p e t i t i o n , 
the 
p a r t i e s 
l i t i g a t e d 
the 
completeness of the 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 over by Judge R o b e r t E. A u s t i n . 
4 
1101410 
p e t i t i o n and d i d 
not r e l a t e back t o t h e o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n . See  
J e n k i n s v. S t a t e , 972 So. 2d 111 ( A l a . 
Crim. App. 2004) . 
On 
A p r i l 
8, 2005, 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
r e v e r s e d t h e C o u r t 
of C r i m i n a l 
A p p e a l s ' judgment " 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 m i s c o n d u c t , 
p r e s e n t e d f o r 
t h e f i r s t time i n 
h i s 
amended p e t i t i o n , c o u l d not be c o n s i d e r e d because i t 
d i d not 
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 . " 
Ex p a r t e J e n k i n s , 972 
So. 2d 159, 165 ( A l a . 2005) . T h i s C o u r t remanded the case f o r 
f u r t h e r 
p r o c e e d i n g s . 
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 g a i n 
a f f i r m e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r d e n y i n g 
r e l i e f on 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 . 
J e n k i n s v. S t a t e , 972 So. 2d 165 
( A l a . 
Crim. 
App. 
2005). 
I n a f f i r m i n g 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
d e c i s i o n , t h a t c o u r t n o t e d 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 
d u r i n g the 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 t h a t 
h i s 
j u r o r - m i s c o n d u c t c l a i m was not known and c o u l d not have 
been d i s c o v e r e d i n time t o r a i s e i t a t t r i a l or on a p p e a l . 
972 So. 2d a t 167-68. 
On May 18, 2007, t h i s C o u r t 
d e n i e d 
J e n k i n s ' s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i . 
On May 15, 2008, J e n k i n s 
f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f 
habeas corpus 
p u r s u a n t 
t o 28 U.S.C. § 2254 i n t h e U n i t e d 
5 
1101410 
S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f Alabama. 
The f e d e r a l habeas corpus p e t i t i o n i n c l u d e d 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 . 
Subsequent 
t o 
J e n k i n s ' s 
f i l i n g 
h i s 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 ( A l a . 
2008). 
In Ex p a r t e B u r g e s s , 
t h i s C o u r t 
r e v i e w e d 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 a n c e o f 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 which 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 t h a t 
t h a t c l a i m c o u l d have been, b u t was n o t , r a i s e d a t t r i a l o r on 
a p p e a l . 
See R u l e 3 2 . 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) and 
( a ) ( 5 ) . In r e v e r s i n g 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 ' judgment, t h i s C o u r t r e a f f i r m e d the 
p r i n c i p l e e s t a b l i s h e d i n S t a t e v. Freeman, 605 So. 2d 1258 
( A l a . 
Crim. App. 1992), and Ex p a r t e P i e r c e , 851 So. 2d 606 
( A l a . 
2000), 
t h a t 
a 
R u l e 
32 
p e t i t i o n e r 
r a i s i n g 
j u r o r -
m i s c o n d u c t 
c l a i m 
r e l a t i n g t o a j u r o r ' s 
f a i l u r e t o d i s c l o s e 
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 
R u l e s 3 2 . 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) and 
( a ) ( 5 ) , A l a . R. Crim. P., i f t h a t 
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 or 
i n 
time t o r a i s e t h e i s s u e i n a motion 
f o r new 
t r i a l 
o r on 
6 
1101410 
a p p e a l . ' " 
Ex p a r t e B u r g e s s , 
21 So. 
3d a t 751 
( q u o t i n g 
Ex  
p a r t e P i e r c e , 851 So. 2d a t 616 
(emphasis added)) 
On 
October 
1, 
2008,
3 
J e n k i n s 
f i l e d 
a second Rule 
32 
p e t i t i o n based on the a u t h o r i t y of Ex p a r t e Burgess i n which 
he 
r e a l l e g e d h i s j u r o r - m i s c o n d u c t 
c l a i m . 
In h i s Rule 
32 
p e t i t i o n , 
J e n k i n s 
" i n c o r p o r a t e [ d ] 
... 
the 
r e c o r d 
of 
the 
[ p r e v i o u s ] 
e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g 
conducted" 
on 
h i s 
j u r o r -
m i s c o n d u c t 
c l a i m . 
J e n k i n s ' s 
second Rule 
32 
p e t i t i o n 
was 
a s s i g n e d t o y e t a n o t h e r 
c i r c u i t judge — 
Judge James E. 
H i l l , 
J r . 
On October 31, 2008, the S t a t e answered the p e t i t i o n 
and 
moved 
t o 
d i s m i s s 
i t , a r g u i n g 
t h a t 
the 
p e t i t i o n 
was 
p r o c e d u r a l l y b a r r e d p u r s u a n t 
t o R u l e s 32.2(b) and 
3 2 . 2 ( c ) , 
A l a . 
R. 
Crim. 
P., 
and 
t h a t , based on the p r e v i o u s Rule 
32 
h e a r i n g , 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 w i t h o u t m e r i t . 
The 
S t a t e f u r t h e r argued t h a t because J e n k i n s ' s 
c l a i m 
was 
3On 
October 2, 2008, J e n k i n s moved the 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 habeas 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 
Rule 
32 
p e t i t i o n 
r e a s s e r t i n g h i s 
j u r o r - m i s c o n d u c t 
c l a i m i n l i g h t of 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, 
the 
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 m o t i o n t o s t a y h i s habeas p r o c e e d i n g s . 
7 
1101410 
p r o c e d u r a l l y 
b a r r e d and was w i t h o u t 
m e r i t , i t s h o u l d be 
d i s m i s s e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 3 2 . 7 ( d ) , A l a . R. Crim. P. 
On November 5, 2008, J e n k i n s moved t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t f o r 
time t o f i l e a r e p l y t o t h e S t a t e ' s answer and m o t i o n t o 
d i s m i s s . 
On November 21, 2008, b e f o r e t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t had 
r u l e d on J e n k i n s ' s r e q u e s t , t h e S t a t e s u b m i t t e d t o t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t a p r o p o s e d 
o r d e r 
d e n y i n g 
J e n k i n s ' s 
second 
Rule 32 
p e t i t i o n . 
The S t a t e ' s 
p r o p o s e d 
o r d e r 
c o n t a i n e d 
numerous 
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 from J e n k i n s ' s 
t r i a l 
i n 
1991, as w e l l as t o t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l 
f o l l o w i n g 
J e n k i n s ' s i n i t i a l p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s i n 
1996 
and 1997. 
The p r o p o s e d o r d e r p u r p o r t e d t o make f a c t u a l and c r e d i b i l i t y 
f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g w i t n e s s e s whom Judge H i l l had never seen 
t e s t i f y and a l s o c o n t a i n e d a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s o f t h e v o i r 
d i r e p r o c e e d i n g s a t t r i a l . 
J e n k i n s s t a t e s t h a t t h e p r o p o s e d o r d e r was f i l e d by 
t h e 
S t a t e u s i n g 
f i r s t - c l a s s m a i l on F r i d a y , November 21, 2008. 
Thus, he s u r m i s e s 
t h a t , g i v e n t h a t t h e c o u r t h o u s e 
would be 
c l o s e d f o r 
t h e weekend, t h e e a r l i e s t t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t o r a 
member o f i t s s t a f f c o u l d have seen t h e p r o p o s e d o r d e r would 
have been t h e f o l l o w i n g Monday, November 24, 2008. 
J e n k i n s 
8 
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 
m a i l e d t o the S t . 
C l a i r C i r c u i t C o u r t c l e r k ' s o f f i c e i n A s h v i l l e . 
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 
s i t t i n g 
i n A s h v i l l e 
on Monday November 24, 
2008, but 
was 
i n s t e a d s i t t i n g i n P e l l C i t y on t h a t d a t e . 
On November 25, 
2008, Judge H i l l was 
s i t t i n g i n the A s h v i l l e c o u r t h o u s e ; 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
s i g n e d 
the 
S t a t e ' s 
p r o p o s e d 
o r d e r 
t h a t 
day, 
d e n y i n g 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 making any changes 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 r e c o r d s are kept i n 
the 
c i r c u i t c o u r t c l e r k ' s 
o f f i c e and t h a t a l o g i s kept 
of 
when 
c o u r t 
f i l e s 
are 
"checked 
o u t " 
by 
c o u r t 
p e r s o n n e l . 
J e n k i n s 
contends 
t h a t 
b e f o r e 
s i g n i n g the 
p r o p o s e d 
o r d e r , 
n e i t h e r Judge H i l l nor any member of h i s s t a f f "checked o u t " 
from 
the 
c l e r k ' s 
o f f i c e 
h i s 
c o u r t 
f i l e s 
c o n t a i n i n g 
the 
t r a n s c r i p t s and p l e a d i n g s from h i s t r i a l and the f i r s t R u l e 
32 
p r o c e e d i n g s . 
On December 3, 2008 — 
a f t e r s i g n i n g the p r o p o s e d o r d e r 
d i s m i s s i n g 
J e n k i n s ' s 
second Rule 
32 
p e t i t i o n 
-- 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t g r a n t e d J e n k i n s ' s p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d motion f o r time 
t o 
r e p l y t o the S t a t e ' s answer and motion t o d i s m i s s . 
A l t h o u g h 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t s i g n e d the p r o p o s e d o r d e r d e n y i n g 
J e n k i n s ' s 
9 
1101410 
second 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 not 
r e c e i v e n o t i c e of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s a c t i o n u n t i l December 23, 
2008. 
I n t h e meantime, J e n k i n s , on December 15, 2008, 
f i l e d 
h i s response t o t h e S t a t e ' s answer and motion t o d i s m i s s , a 
m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o f i l e an amended p e t i t i o n f o r r e l i e f from 
h i s c o n v i c t i o n s and s e n t e n c e s , and a motion t o s e t a 
b r i e f i n g 
s c h e d u l e . 
J e n k i n s 
f i l e d 
an 
"Emergency 
M o t i o n 
f o r 
R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n " 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 
c o u r t 
had 
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 
d e n y i n g h i s R u l e 32 
p e t i t i o n . 
J e n k i n s u r g e d the t r i a l 
c o u r t i n h i s m o t i o n f o r 
r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o a c t q u i c k l y , b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t 
would l o s e 
j u r i s d i c t i o n of h i s case on December 
25, 2008. 
However, 
i t appears 
t h a t 
those 
a s s e r t i o n s were 
e r r o n e o u s 
because, a l t h o u g h t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t s i g n e d t h e o r d e r 
a d o p t i n g 
the S t a t e ' s p r o p o s e d o r d e r on November 25, 2008, i t d i d not 
a c t u a l l y 
e n t e r 
t h a t o r d e r 
u n t i l J a n u a r y 2, 2009. 
J e n k i n s 
f i l e d a n o t i c e of a p p e a l t o t h e C o u r t of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s on 
December 
29, 2008. 
On 
J a n u a r y 9, 2009, the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
e n t e r e d an o r d e r s t a t i n g t h a t i t 
had l o s t j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e 
case t o t h e C o u r t of C r i m i n a l 
A p p e a l s . 
10 
1101410 
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 e d the t r i a l c o u r t ' s 
d i s m i s s a l of J e n k i n s ' s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . 
J e n k i n s v. S t a t e 
[Ms. CR-08-0490, August 26, 2011] 
So. 3d 
( A l a . Crim. 
App. 2011) . T h i s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i f o l l o w e d . 
S t a n d a r d o f Review 
" ' T h i s C o u r t r e v i e w s pure q u e s t i o n s o f law i n c r i m i n a l 
cases de novo.'" Ex p a r t e Morrow, 915 So. 2d 539, 541 ( A l a . 
2004) 
( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e Key, 
890 
So. 
2d 1056, 
1059 
( A l a . 
2 0 0 3 ) ) . 
D i s c u s s i o n 
J e n k i n s 
contends 
t h a t 
the 
C o u r t 
of 
C r i m i n a l 
A p p e a l s 
m i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d 
and 
m i s a p p l i e d the h o l d i n g s i n Ex 
p a r t e  
Ingram, s u p r a , and 
Ex p a r t e S c o t t , s u p r a , t o the unique f a c t s 
of 
t h i s case. 
I n Ex p a r t e Ingram, 
the d e f e n d a n t , who 
was 
c o n v i c t e d i n 1995 
of 
c a p i t a l murder and was 
s e n t e n c e d 
t o 
d e a t h , f i l e d a R u l e 32, A l a . R. Crim. 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 from h i s c o n v i c t i o n and s e n t e n c e . 
In 
March 2002, the S t a t e 
f i l e d 
a r e s p o n s e t o the 
d e f e n d a n t ' s 
p e t i t i o n 
and a motion 
f o r a p a r t i a l summary d i s m i s s a l . 
In 
A p r i l 2002, the d e f e n d a n t 
f i l e d 
a response t o the S t a t e ' s 
motion 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 32 
11 
1101410 
p e t i t i o n , i n which 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 funds 
t o 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 . I n J u l y 2002, the S t a t e 
responded 
t o the d e f e n d a n t ' s motions 
and amended R u l e 
32 
p e t i t i o n . 
On May 20, 2004, the 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 
the 
d e f e n d a n t ' s 
R u l e 
32 
p e t i t i o n . 
The 
d e f e n d a n t 
d i d not 
r e s p o n d 
t o 
the 
S t a t e ' s p r o p o s e d 
o r d e r . 
Judge 
J e r r y 
L. 
F i e l d i n g , who had p r e s i d e d over the d e f e n d a n t ' s c a p i t a l - m u r d e r 
t r i a l 
i n 1995, 
r e t i r e d w h i l e the R u l e 32 p r o c e e d i n g s were 
p e n d i n g , 
and 
the 
case 
was 
a s s i g n e d t o Judge 
W i l l i a m 
E. 
H o l l i n g s w o r t h . 
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 o r d e r 
d e n y i n g the d e f e n d a n t ' s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . The o r d e r adopted 
v e r b a t i m the p r o p o s e d o r d e r 
f i l e d by the S t a t e on May 
20, 
2004, the o n l y m o d i f i c a t i o n s b e i n g t h a t the h e a d i n g 
s t a t e d 
"Order" r a t h e r t h a n "Proposed Order" and the s i g n a t u r e page 
c o n t a i n e d 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 
F i e l d i n g ' s 
s i g n a t u r e . 
Judge H o l l i n g s w o r t h d i d not 
h o l d 
a 
h e a r i n g or a s t a t u s c o n f e r e n c e on the d e f e n d a n t ' s p e t i t i o n and 
p e n d i n g motions and d i d not e x p l i c i t l y a d d r e s s the d e f e n d a n t ' s 
p e n d i n g motions i n the June 8 o r d e r . On J u l y 21, 2004, Judge 
12 
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 the June 
8 o r d e r . On September 7, 2004, the C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s 
i s s u e d an o r d e r d i r e c t i n g 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t t o s e t a s i d e i t s 
J u l y 
21 
o r d e r , 
h o l d i n g 
t h a t 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
had 
l o s t 
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 days a f t e r e n t e r i n g 
i t . 
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 e d the summary d e n i a l 
of 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 . See Ingram v. S t a t e , 51 
So. 3d 1094 
( A l a . Crim. App. 2006). The d e f e n d a n t 
p e t i t i o n e d 
t h i s C o u r t f o r a w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i , which t h i s C o u r t g r a n t e d 
the p e t i t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e whether the June 8 o r d e r r e p r e s e n t e d 
the 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 of the t r i a l 
c o u r t . 
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 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s o r d e r 
d e n y i n g 
the 
d e f e n d a n t ' s 
R u l e 
32 
p e t i t i o n , 
t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d : 
" I t 
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 or 
d e n y i n g r e l i e f under R u l e 32, A l a . R. Crim. P., must 
be 
an 
o r d e r 
of 
the 
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 of the f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of the  
c o u r t . 
A l t h o u g h 
no 
a u t h o r i t y 
o t h e r 
than 
the 
c r e a t i o n of the j u d i c i a l b r a n c h and the 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 the Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n , A l a . Const. 
1901, 
Amend. No. 328, § 6.01(a) (now § 1 3 9 ( a ) , A l a . Const. 
1901 
(Off.Recomp.)), 
i s n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t 
t h i s 
p r o p o s i t i o n , 
the p r o v i s i o n s of R u l e s 32.1 
t h r o u g h 
32.10, A l a . R.Crim. P., a l s o p r o v i d e s u p p o r t . Among 
13 
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 
d i s m i s s 
the 
p e t i t i o n ; 
R u l e 
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 32.9(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 of 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 of 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 adopt the 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 the same 
measure as any 
o t h e r 
o r d e r 
of the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t . 
In 
Dobyne v. 
S t a t e , 
805 
So. 
2d 
733, 
741 
( A l a . Crim. 
App. 
2000), the C o u r t of 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 
a d o p t i n g 
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 t o 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 even when the c o u r t adopts 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 
 
of the 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 . ' " ' 
"805 
So. 
2d a t 741 
( q u o t i n g o t h e r 
c a s e s ; 
emphasis 
added). In McGahee v. S t a t e , 885 So. 2d 191, 229-30 
( A l a . 
Crim. 
App. 
2003), 
the 
C o u r t 
of 
C r i m i n a l 
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 adopts 
v e r b a t i m 
a p a r t y ' s p r o p o s e d o r d e r , 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 of law are those of the 
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 . ' 
Cf. 
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. Ed.2d 12 (1964) ( e x p r e s s i n g d i s a p p r o v a l of the 
'mechanical' 
a d o p t i o n 
of f i n d i n g s of f a c t 
p r e p a r e d 
by 
a 
p a r t y , 
but 
s t a t i n g 
t h a t 
such 
f i n d i n g s 
are 
f o r m a l l y those of the t r i a l judge and 
'are not t o be 
r e j e c t e d 
o u t - o f - h a n d ' ) . 
14 
1101410 
we 
cannot 
i s 
"In 
t h i s 
u n u s u a l 
case, 
however, 
we 
ca 
c o n c l u d e 
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 ' 
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 
judge s i g n e d the June 8 o r d e r , we 
cannot 
c o n c l u d e 
t h a t the 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 are 
i n 
f a c t t h o s e o f 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 
f o l l o w s : 
"'Having c o n s i d e r e d the 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 the C o u r t , 
the S t a t e of Alabama's amended answer, the 
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 the 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 , 
the C o u r t makes the 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 of law and 
summarily 
d i s m i s s e s and d e n i e s the 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 . ' 
"(Emphasis added.) A f t e r a r e n d i t i o n of the f a c t s of 
the case, the June 8 o r d e r s t a t e s : 
"'The 
f i n d i n g s by 
the C o u r t of 
C r i m i n a l 
A p p e a l s 
[ i n Ingram v. 
S t a t e , 
779 
So. 
2d 
1225 
( A l a . C r i m . App. 
1999),] g u i d e 
the 
C o u r t 
i n i t s r e s o l u t i o n 
of 
the 
i s s u e s 
p r e s e n t e d 
i n the 
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 the 
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 
the C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and the r e s o l u t i o n of 
t h i s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . 
In 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 over Ingram's c a p i t a l murder  
t r i a l 
and 
p e r s o n a l l y 
o b s e r v e d 
the 
 
performance 
of 
b o t h 
l a w y e r s 
t h r o u g h o u t 
 
Ingram's t r i a l and s e n t e n c i n g . ' 
"(Emphasis added.) 
15 
1101410 
"The 
o b v i o u s 
problem 
w i t h 
t h e 
emphasized 
p o r t i o n s o f t h e above-quoted passages from t h e June 
8 
o r d e r 
i s 
t h a t 
Judge 
F i e l d i n g , 
n o t 
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 . A l t h o u g h minor f a c t u a l e r r o r s 
u n d e r s t a n d a b l y 
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 by t r i a l 
c o u r t s 
i n h a n d l i n g busy d o c k e t s , an e r r o r as t o whether t h e 
judge 
i n 
f a c t 
s a t as 
t h e 
t r i a l 
judge 
i n a 
c a p i t a l - m u r d e r 
t r i a l and i s b a s i n g h i s d e c i s i o n on 
p e r s o n a l 
o b s e r v a t i o n s 
and 
p e r s o n a l 
knowledge 
a c q u i r e d by d o i n g 
so i s t h e most 
m a t e r i a l and 
o b v i o u s o f 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 
not even r e a 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 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 and t h a t 
the June 8 o r d e r 
cannot r e p r e s e n t t h e a c t u a l and 
independent 
f i n d i n g s o f t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t . 
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 attempt 
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 and 
t o r e c u s e h i m s e l f from t h e case 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 
f l a w e d . 
" 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 
o r d e r , 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 t h e 
judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n summarily d i s m i s s i n g 
Ingram's Rule 32 p e t i t i o n based 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 
employs 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 and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law even when 
t h o s e 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 
from 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 quoted t h e f o l l o w i n g passage from Dobyne: 
" ' " ' " W h i l e 
t h e 
p r a c t i c e 
o f 
a d o p t i n g 
t h e 
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 t o 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 even 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 , t h e f i n d i n g s a r e those 
16 
1101410 
of 
the 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 
( A l a . 
Crim. App. 
1991), 
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 of law i n the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t ' s 
[June 8] o r d e r were not 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 the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s judgment 
was 
due t o be a f f i r m e d . Ingram I I [Ingram v. S t a t e , 
51 
So. 3d 1094, 1100 
( A l a . Crim. App. 
2 0 0 6 ) ] . 
"The S t a t e echoes the r e a s o n i n g o f the C o u r t of 
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 
t o 
e x p l a i n 
s p e c i f i c a l l y how 
any of the 
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 e r r o n e o u s s t a t e m e n t s 
i n 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s June 
8 o r d e r 
are 
h a r m l e s s 
because, 
i t a r g u e s , 
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 not based upon the 
t r i a l 
judge's p e r s o n a l 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 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 
based 
on 
h i s 
f i n d i n g 
t h a t 
the 
c l a i m s 
were 
not 
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 
the 
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 
Ingram 
on 
d i r e c t 
a p p e a l , 
o r 
were 
p r o c e d u r a l l y d e f a u l t e d . ' 
"Though 
the 
' c l e a r l y 
e r r o n e o u s ' 
s t a n d a r d 
of 
r e v i e w may 
a p p l y i n cases i n w h i c h the 
t r i a l c o u r t 
has adopted, as i t s own, 
the 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 , the a n a l y s i s p r o f f e r e d by b o t h the 
C o u r t of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s 
and 
the S t a t e 
f a i l s 
t o 
admit 
of 
the 
most 
fundamental 
and 
the 
f i r s t 
r e q u i r e m e n t : 
t h a t t h e o r d e r and 
the 
f i n d i n g s 
and 
c o n c l u s i o n s i n such o r d e r a r e i n f a c t those of the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t . 
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 
to 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 
the p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y and adopted by the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
v e r b a t i m 
does 
not 
r e f l e c t 
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 
of 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t . In B e l l v. S t a t e , 593 So. 2d 123 
( A l a . Crim. 
App. 
1 9 9 1 ) — t h e case the C o u r t of 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 
e r r o n e o u s ' 
s t a n d a r d 
of r e v i e w — t h e 
C o u r t of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s 
o b s e r v e d : 
"'The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t d i d adopt v e r b a t i m 
the 
p r o p o s e d 
o r d e r 
t e n d e r e d 
by 
the 
s t a t e ; 
however, from our r e v i e w of the r e c o r d , 
we 
 
are 
c o n v i n c e d 
t h a t 
the 
f i n d i n g s 
and 
 
c o n c l u s i o n s are t h o s e 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 the 
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 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 e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t h i s c l a i m s . ' 
" B e l l , 
593 
So. 
2d 
a t 
126 
(emphasis added) . 
The 
u n d i s p u t e d 
f a c t s 
i n 
the 
p r e s e n t 
case 
o b v i o u s l y 
p r e v e n t 
a s i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n 
h e r e . 
"We 
are 
f o r c e d by 
the 
n a t u r e 
of 
the 
e r r o r s 
p r e s e n t i n the June 8 o r d e r t o r e v e r s e the judgment 
of the C o u r t of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s . 
In the 
s i m p l e s t 
terms, 
the 
p a t e n t l y 
e r r o n e o u s 
n a t u r e 
of 
the 
s t a t e m e n t s 
r e g a r d i n g 
the 
t r i a l 
judge's 
' p e r s o n a l 
knowledge' 
and 
o b s e r v a t i o n s 
of 
Ingram's 
c a p i t a l - m u r d e r 
t r i a l undermines any c o n f i d e n c e 
t h a t 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 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 
of 
law 
are 
the 
p r o d u c t 
of 
the 
t r i a l 
judge's 
independent 
judgment 
and 
t h a t 
the 
June 
8 
o r d e r 
r e f l e c t s 
the 
f i n d i n g s 
and 
c o n c l u s i o n s 
of 
t h a t 
j u d g e . " 
Ex p a r t e Ingram, 51 So. 3d a t 1122-25 ( f o o t n o t e 
o m i t t e d ) . 
18 
1101410 
In Ex p a r t e S c o t t , t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t adopted t h e S t a t e ' s 
answer 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 . 
T h i s C o u r t 
c o n c l u d e d 
t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n a d o p t i n g t h e S t a t e ' s 
answer as i t s o r d e r because 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 " and t h a t " v e r b a t i m a d o p t i o n o f 
t h e 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 i s 
C o u r t ' s 
h o l d i n g i n Ex p a r t e 
Ingram," 
w h i c h 
r e q u i r e s t h a t a t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s o r d e r 
r e f l e c t t h e independent 
and i m p a r t i a l f i n d i n g s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t . 
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 t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s o r d e r here 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 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  
Ingram and Ex p a r t e S c o t t t h a t , u n l e s s a p e t i t i o n e r 
p r e s e n t s 
a 
f a c t u a l s c e n a r i o e x a c t l y l i k e t h e s c e n a r i o s p r e s e n t e d i n 
those c a s e s , t h e p e t i t i o n e r would n o t 
be e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f . 
Second, he contends t h a t t h e f a c t s s u g g e s t t h a t t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
c o u l d 
n o t have 
made 
t h e 
independent 
f i n d i n g s , 
c r e d i b i l i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n s , and 
c o n c l u s i o n s t h e 
o r d e r p u r p o r t s 
i t made i n 
t h e s h o r t time t h a t e l a p s e d between r e c e i v i n g 
t h e 
p r o p o s e d o r d e r and s i g n i n g i t . 
The 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 : 
19 
1101410 
" J e n k i n s 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 p r o p o s e d o r d e r d e n y i n g 
r e l i e f . 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , 
he 
argues 
t h a t the 
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 p r o p o s e d o r d e r v i o l a t e d h i s 
r i g h t 
t o 
'independent 
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 of law.' 
( J e n k i n s ' s b r i e f , a t 
15.) 
"  
"In 
Ex p a r t e Ingram, 51 So. 3d 1119, 
1122 
( A l a . 
2010), 
the Alabama 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 ] 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 the 
same measure as any o t h e r o r d e r of the 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] c o n c l u d e 
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 ' because the adopted 
o r d e r c o n t a i n e d i n d i s p u t a b l y f a l s e s t a t e m e n t s . 
I d . 
at 1123-24. 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , the judge who 
s i g n e d the 
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 
over Ingram's 
t r i a l 
and 
had 
p e r s o n a l knowledge 
of 
the 
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 
judge 
had p r e s i d e d over the t r i a l . 
I d . 
The Supreme C o u r t 
then 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 of the 
s t a t e m e n t s 
r e g a r d i n g 
the 
t r i a l 
judge's 
" p e r s o n a l 
knowledge" 
and 
o b s e r v a t i o n s 
of 
Ingram's 
c a p i t a l - m u r d e r 
t r i a l undermines any c o n f i d e n c e 
t h a t 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 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 
of 
law 
are 
the 
p r o d u c t 
of 
the 
t r i a l 
judge's 
independent judgment and t h a t the ... o r d e r 
r e f l e c t s 
the f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of t h a t judge.' 
I d . a t 
1125 
(emphasis i n the o r i g i n a l ) . 
Because the 
o r d e r 
e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t the c o n c l u s i o n s were not t h o s e 
of 
the judge, the Supreme C o u r t r e v e r s e d the d i s m i s s a l 
of Ingram's R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n . 
I d . 
" L a t e r , i n Ex p a r t e S c o t t , [Ms. 1091275, March 
18, 
2011] 
So. 
3d 
, 
( A l a . 2011), 
the 
Alabama Supreme C o u r t 
h e l d t h a t the 
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 the S t a t e ' s 
answer t o a Rule 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 Ingram, the C o u r t h e l d 
t h a t 
i t c o n s t i t u t e s e r r o r f o r a 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t 
t o 
adopt 
the 
p r e v a i l i n g 
p a r t y ' s 
answer 
because 
an 
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 
[and] 
because 
an 
answer 
i s 
a 
p l e a d i n g 
t h a t 
never 
i s 
p r e p a r e d 
w i t h the p r e t e n s e 
of 
i m p a r t i a l i t y . ' 
I d . 
Because 
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 
' v e r b a t i m 
a d o p t i o n 
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 
[the C o u r t ' s ] 
h o l d i n g i n Ex  
p a r t e Ingram [ t h a t the 
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 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 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 
Ingram, the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t ' s 
o r d e r i n t h i s case does not c o n t a i n s t a t e m e n t s t h a t 
are ' p a t e n t l y e r r o n e o u s . ' 
51 So. 3d a t 1125. 
A l s o , 
u n l i k e Ex p a r t e S c o t t , the c i r c u i t c o u r t adopted the 
S t a t e ' s 
p r o p o s e d 
o r d e r 
as 
opposed 
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 o r d e r p u r p o r t s t o 
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 
o r d e r 
d e n y i n g 
r e l i e f , 
the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t 
s t a t e d 
t h a t 
i t 
had 
' t h o r o u g h l y 
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 the 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 the r e c o r d on d i r e c t a p p e a l , 
p r i o r 
t o 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 . 
Based 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 adopt 
the 
[ 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 the same measure 
as 
any 
o t h e r 
o r d e r 
of the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t , ' Ex 
p a r t e 
 
Ingram, 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 
S t a t e ' s p r o p o s e d o r d e r . 
"  
"Next, J e n k i n s ' s argument t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t 
d i d 
not 
make 
independent 
f i n d i n g s 
of 
f a c t s 
or 
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 24-
page 
p r o p o s e d 
o r d e r 
i n t h e 
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 
the 
o r d e r 
i s based 
on 
t h e assumption 
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 days between 
when J e n k i n s f i l e d h i s Rule 32 p e t i t i o n and 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 t h e p e t i t i o n . 
J e n k i n s 
f i l e d 
h i s Rule 32 p e t i t i o n on October 1, 2008. 
The S t a t e 
f i l e d 
i t s answer and motion 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 October 31, 2008. 
The 
c i r c u i t c o u r t 
s i g n e d 
i t s o r d e r 
d e n y i n g 
r e l i e f on November 25, 
2008. 
Almost two months e l a p s e d between t h e f i l i n g 
of 
J e n k i n s ' s 
p e t i t i o n 
and 
t h e 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t ' s 
i s s u i n g i t s o r d e r . 
C o n t r a r y t o J e n k i n s ' s 
a s s e r t i o n , 
55 days p r o v i d e d 
p l e n t y o f time 
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 . " 
J e n k i n s , 
So. 3d a t 
( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) . 
J e n k i n s p o i n t s t o t h e f o l l o w i n g 
f a c t s t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h e 
t r i a l 
judge 
s i g n e d 
t h e p r o p o s e d 
o r d e r 
w i t h o u t 
c a r e f u l l y 
r e a d i n g and v e r i f y i n g i t 
and t h a t t h e o r d e r i s not a p r o d u c t 
of t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s independent judgment: 
1. The judge who p r e s i d e d over t h e s u c c e s s i v e 
Rule 32 p r o c e e d i n g s 
was new t o J e n k i n s ' s case and 
was u n f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e case, i n c l u d i n g t h e c a p i t a l -
murder t r i a l and 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 judge may have been aware of t h e 
few 
p l e a d i n g s 
f i l e d 
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 the b r i e f pendency 
of 
t h i s 
case 
d i d t h e 
judge 
r e v i e w 
t h e 
t r i a l 
t r a n s c r i p t s , 
t h e 
i n i t i a l 
R u l e 
32 
h e a r i n g 
t r a n s c r i p t s , o r t h e 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 judge 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 
o r d e r from the S t a t e . 
The o r d e r was 24 pages l o n g 
and 
c o n t a i n e d more than 30 c i t a t i o n s t o t h e 
t r i a l 
t r a n s c r i p t 
o r 
t h e 
i n i t i a l 
Rule 
3 2 - p r o c e e d i n g 
t r a n s c r i p t . 
The 
o r d e r 
made 
c r e d i b i l i t y 
d e t e r m i n a t i o n s 
t h a t 
were 
a d v e r s e 
t o 
J e n k i n s , 
p u r p o r t e d t o deny a l l r e l i e f i n the case, and n o t e d 
t h a t J e n k i n s would have 42 days from t h e s i g n i n g o f 
the o r d e r t o f i l e a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l ; 
4. W i t h i n hours 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 
p r o p o s e d 
o r d e r , 
t h e same 
t r i a l 
judge 
g r a n t e d 
J e n k i n s ' s p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d motion t o r e s p o n d t o 
the 
S t a t e ' s 
answer and motion 
t o d i s m i s s , 
o r d e r i n g 
J e n k i n s t o respond w i t h i n 45 days. 
The t r i a l judge 
e n t e r e d and 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 the "case a c t i o n summary," i m m e d i a t e l y 
below 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 p r o p o s e d o r d e r w i t h o u t r e a d i n g i t c a r e f u l l y and w i t h o u t 
v e r i f y i n g i t s c o n t e n t s 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 judge 
s i g n e d 
t h e o r d e r 
w i t h i n 
hours 
o f 
r e c e i v i n g 
i t . 
T h i s 
c o n t e n t i o n i s based on J e n k i n s ' s 
" b e l i e f " t h a t t h e e a r l i e s t 
the t r i a l judge c o u l d have seen t h e p r o p o s e d o r d e r would have 
been Tuesday, November 25, 2008, t h e date t h e o r d e r was s i g n e d 
i n A s h v i l l e ,
4 because as e x p l a i n e d above, t h e t r i a l judge was 
4As 
s t a t e d above, the 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 21, 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 . 
23 
1101410 
s i t t i n g 
i n 
P e l l 
C i t y 
the 
p r e v i o u s 
day. 
A l s o 
c r u c i a l 
t o 
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 the t r i a l judge had 
not r e v i e w e d 
the r e c o r d s 
from h i s p r i o r 
t r i a l 
and R u l e 
32 
p r o c e e d i n g s . 
N e i t h e r 
of 
t h e s e 
c r u c i a l 
c o n t e n t i o n s 
t o 
J e n k i n s ' s argument are founded upon f a c t s 
c o n t a i n e d i n the 
r e c o r d , and t h e y amount t o o n l y s p e c u l a t i o n and c o n j e c t u r e . 
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 when the t r i a l judge r e c e i v e d 
the p r o p o s e d o r d e r or where he was 
s i t t i n g on November 24 
and 
25, 2008. 
A d d i t i o n a l l y , 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 
t h a t 
the t r i a l judge d i d not r e v i e w 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 p r o c e e d i n g s . 
I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t t h i s C o u r t cannot 
c o n s i d e r arguments founded on m a t t e r s 
not c o n t a i n e d i n the 
r e c o r d . 
E t h e r t o n v. C i t y of Homewood, 700 So. 2d 1374 
( A l a . 
1997). 
The 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s 
of 
t h i s 
case 
d i f f e r 
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 Ingram and Ex p a r t e S c o t t . 
In b o t h of t h o s e cases i t was 
c l e a r from e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h i s 
C o u r t t h a t the o r d e r s s i g n e d by the 
t r i a l c o u r t were not the 
p r o d u c t of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s independent judgment. 
In Ingram, 
t h a t f a c t was 
c l e a r from the s t a t e m e n t s c o n t a i n e d i n the o r d e r 
r e g a r d i n g 
the 
t r i a l 
judge's 
" p e r s o n a l 
knowledge" 
and 
24 
1101410 
o b s e r v a t i o n s of Ingram's c a p i t a l - m u r d e r 
t r i a l when the 
t r i a l 
judge s i g n i n g the p r o p o s e d R u l e 32 o r d e r d i d not r e s i d e over 
Ingram's c a p i t a l - m u r d e r 
t r i a l . 
In Ex p a r t e S c o t t , t h a t 
f a c t 
was 
c l e a r 
from 
the 
m a t e r i a l s 
b e f o r e 
t h i s 
C o u r t , 
which 
c o n t a i n e d the S t a t e ' s r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g adopted by the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t as i t s o r d e r . 
In t h i s case, however, t h e r e i s n o t h i n g 
d e f i n i t i v e 
i n the r e c o r d or on the 
f a c e of the o r d e r 
t h a t 
i n d i c a t e s 
t h a t the 
o r d e r 
i s not 
the 
p r o d u c t 
of 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s independent judgment.
5 
In g r a n t i n g the p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i i n t h i s 
case, 
t h i s C o u r t was 
c o n c e r n e d by J e n k i n s ' s a l l e g a t i o n 
t h a t 
the t r i a l c o u r t had s i g n e d the p r o p o s e d o r d e r s u b m i t t e d by the 
S t a t e w i t h o u t 
f i r s t 
c a r e f u l l y 
r e v i e w i n g 
the 
o r d e r 
and 
the 
r e c o r d of the p r i o r p r o c e e d i n g s . 
T h i s a l l e g a t i o n has not been 
s u b s t a n t i a t e d by the r e c o r d . 
A l t h o u g h 
the i s s u e r a i s e d by 
5 J e n k i n s 
asks 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
t o remand 
t h i s 
case 
f o r 
an 
e v i d e n t i a r y 
h e a r i n g 
as 
t o 
the 
f a c t u a l 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s 
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 p r o p o s e d o r d e r . 
T h i s , however, i s not 
c o n t e m p l a t e d 
by 
the d e c i s i o n s i n 
Ex  
p a r t e Ingram 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. Upton, 
U.S. 
, 130 S.Ct. 
2217, 
176 L.Ed. 
2d 
1032 
(2010), i n s u p p o r t of 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 
the 
i s s u e 
of 
the 
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 the f a c t s p e r t i n e n t t o the habeas a p p l i c a t i o n . 
25 
1101410 
J e n k i n s i s 
a c l o s e one, w i t h o u t more, we must agree w i 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 ' 
c o n c l u s i o n t h a t J e n k i n s ' s argument 
as t o t h i s i s s u e "[assumes] 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 days between 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 c o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e p e t i t i o n . " 
So. 3d a t 
. 
T h i s 
C o u r t ' s 
d e c i s i o n 
t o d a y 
s h o u l d 
n o t be 
r e a d 
as 
e n t i t l i n g 
a 
p e t i t i o n e r 
t o 
r e l i e f i n o n l y 
those 
f a c t u a l 
s c e n a r i o s s i m i l a r t o those p r e s e n t e d i n 
Ex p a r t e Ingram and Ex 
 
p a r t e S c o t t . A R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n e r would be e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f 
i n any f a c t u a l 
s c e n a r i o when t h e r e c o r d 
b e f o r e 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t t h e o r d e r s i g n e d by t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t 
d e n y i n g p o s t c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f i s 
n o t t h e p r o d u c t o f t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s independent judgment. 
See Ex p a r t e Ingram. 
C o n c l u s i o n 
On 
F e b r u a r y 
7, 2012, 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
g r a n t e d 
J e n k i n s ' s 
p e t i t i o n 
f o r a w r i t 
o f c e r t i o r a r i 
o n l y as t o t h e ground 
c h a l l e n g i n g 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 a n c e o f 
t h e 
t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g J e n k i n s ' s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n on 
the bases t h a t t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t adopted v e r b a t i m t h e S t a t e ' s 
p r o p o s e d o r d e r , and we h e l d i n abeyance t h e o t h e r 
grounds 
26 
1101410 
r a i s e d i n 
J e n k i n s ' s p e t i t i o n p e n d i n g r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s i s s u e . 
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 ' judgment i n s o f a r 
as i t u p h o l d s t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s a d o p t i o n o f t h e S t a t e ' s 
p r o p o s e d 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 ; as t o t h e 
r e m a i n i n g grounds we now deny t h e p e t i t i o n f o r 
a w r i t o f 
c e r t i o r a r i . 
AFFIRMED AS TO GROUND ON WHICH CERTIORARI REVIEW WAS 
GRANTED; WRIT DENIED AS TO REMAINING GROUNDS. 
Malone, C.J., 
and W o o d a l l , S t u a r t , 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 t h e m s e l v e s . * 
* J u s t i c e Main and J u s t i c e Wise were members o f 
t h e C o u r t 
of 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 case. 
27