Ingram v. State , CR-03-1707.
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Citation | 51 So.3d 1094 |
Docket Number | CR-03-1707. |
Parties | Robert Shawn INGRAM v. STATE of Alabama. |
Decision Date | 08 December 2006 |
John H. Blume, Columbia, South Carolina; and Richard S. Jaffe, Birmingham, for appellant.
Troy King, atty. gen., and James R. Houts and Beth Jackson Hughes, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Robert Shawn Ingram, currently an inmate on death row at Holman Correctional Facility, appeals the summary denial of his Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition for postconviction relief.1
In June 1995, Ingram was convicted of murdering Gregory Huguley during the course of a kidnapping, an offense defined as capital by § 13A-5-40(a)(1), Ala.Code 1975. The jury, by a vote of 11 to 1, recommended that Ingram be sentenced to death. The circuit court followed the jury's recommendation and sentenced Ingram to death. Ingram's capital-murder conviction and death sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Ingram v. State, 779 So.2d 1225 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 779 So.2d 1283 (Ala.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1193, 121 S.Ct. 1194, 149 L.Ed.2d 109 (2001). The direct appeal became final when we issued the certificate of judgment on September 26, 2000. See Rule 41, Ala.R.App.P.
On February 1, 2002, Ingram filed a Rule 32 petition and a request to proceed in forma pauperis. In March 2002, theState filed its response to the petition and moved for summary dismissal. Ingram filed a response to that motion. Two years later the State filed a proposed order for the circuit court to adopt when denying the Rule 32 petition. On June 8, 2004, the circuit court adopted the State's order denying the Rule 32 petition.2 This appeal followed.
At Ingram's trial, the State's evidence tended to show that on July 31, 1993, Ingram and his codefendants—Anthony Boyd, Moneek Marcell Ackles, and Dwinaune Quintay Cox 3—kidnapped Gregory Huguley, took him to a ballpark in Talladega County, taped him to a bench, doused him with gasoline, set him on fire, and watched as he burned to death. Testimony showed that Huguley was abducted and murdered because he failed to pay the defendants $200 for cocaine he had purchased several days before he was murdered.
Ingram appeals the denial of his collateral petition challenging his capital-murder conviction and sentence of death. According to Rule 32.3, Ala.R.Crim.P., Ingram has the sole burden of pleading and proving his claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
Hunt v. State, 940 So.2d 1041, 1049 (Ala.Crim.App.2005).
Ingram argues that the circuit court erred in adopting verbatim the State's proposed order denying the Rule 32 petition. Specifically, he argues that such a practice is "universally condemned." He further argues: "Permitting an adversarial party to perform the judicial function also conflicts with the need for both the reality and appearance that the process for imposing death be scrupulously fair, objective, and reliable." (Ingram's brief at pp. 12-13.)
In Dobyne v. State, 805 So.2d 733, 741 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), we addressed this same issue and stated:
Quoting Jones v. State, 753 So.2d 1174, 1180 (Ala.Cr.App.1999).
As we more recently stated in Hyde v. State, 950 So.2d 344, 371 (Ala.Crim.App.2006):
Thus, even when a circuit court adopts a proposed order by the State in toto, the petitioner must show that the findings of fact and conclusions of law are "clearly erroneous" before an appellate court will reverse the order on the sole basis that the order was drafted by the State. For the following reasons, we find that the facts and conclusions of law in the circuit court's order were not clearly erroneous.
Ingram next argues that he was deprived of his constitutional right to due process when the circuit court denied the Rule 32 petition without first appointing counsel, without ruling on outstanding motions, and without providing him notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The record shows the following chronology of events:
When discussing a petitioner's burden of pleading sufficient grounds to warrant further proceedings in the circuit court, this Court has stated:
Boyd v. State, 913 So.2d 1113, 1125 (Ala.Crim.App.2003). More recently in Hyde v. State, 950 So.2d at 356, we stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woods v. State, CR–10–0695.
...the trial court. In Bell v. State, 593 So.2d 123 (Ala.Crim.App.1991) —the case the Court of Criminal Appeals quoted in Ingram [v. State, 51 So.3d 1094 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) ] for the ‘clearly erroneous' standard of review—the Court of Criminal Appeals observed:" ‘The trial court did adopt ver......
-
Ingram v. Stewart
...its entirety. (Vol. 15, Tab #R-48, C. 205.) Ingram appealed the denial to the ACCA, which affirmed the summary denial. Ingram v. State, 51 So. 3d 1094 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006). Ingram filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Alabama Supreme Court. The Alabama Supreme Court granted the w......
-
James v. State , CR–04–0395.
...of the trial court. In Bell v. State, 593 So.2d 123 (Ala.Crim.App.1991)—the case the Court of Criminal Appeals quoted in Ingram II [, 51 So.3d 1094 (Ala.Crim.App.2006)] for the ‘clearly erroneous' standard of review—the Court of Criminal Appeals observed: “ ‘The trial court did adopt verbat......
-
Bryant v. State
...contexts. See, e.g., Jenkins v. State, 105 So.3d 1234, 1242 (Ala.Crim.App.2011), aff'd, 105 So.3d 1250 (Ala.2012) ; Ingram v. State, 51 So.3d 1094, 1106 (Ala.Crim.App.2006), rev'd on other grounds, 51 So.3d 1119 (Ala.2010) ; Beckworth v. State, [Ms. CR–07–0051, May 1, 2009] ––– So.3d ––––, ......