Ingram v. State, No. CR-03-1707 (Ala. Crim. App. 9/29/2006)
Decision Date | 29 September 2006 |
Docket Number | No. CR-03-1707.,CR-03-1707. |
Parties | Robert Shawn Ingram v. State of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Talladega Circuit Court (CC-94-260.60)
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 (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, the State 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 Cox3 — 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, [Ms. CR-02-0813, August 26, 2005] ___ So. 2d ___, ___ (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, [Ms. CR-04-1092, March 3, 2006] ___ So. 2d ___, ___ (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:
February 1, 2002 — Rule 32 petition and in forma pauperis declaration filed in the Talladega Circuit Court.
February 27, 2002 — In forma pauperis status granted by the circuit court.
March 18, 2002 — State filed its response to the Rule 32 petition.
March 18, 2002 — State filed a motion for partial dismissal pursuant to Rule 32.6(b), Ala.R.Crim.P.
April 23, 2002 — Ingram filed a motion for permission to proceed ex parte on a request for funds for expert assistance.
April 23, 2002 — Ingram filed his first amended petition. In this amended petition, Ingram requested full discovery, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Ex parte Monk, 557 So. 2d 832 (Ala. 1989), and funds for experts.
April 23, 2002 — Ingram filed a motion in opposition to State's motion for a partial dismissal of the Rule 32 petition.
July 26, 2002 — State filed response to Ingram's opposition to State's motion for a partial dismissal.
July 26, 2002 — State filed a response to Ingram's motion to proceed ex parte on request for funds for expert assistance.
July 26, 2002 — State filed a motion for a partial dismissal pursuant to Rule 32.2(a), Ala.R.Crim.P.
July 26, 2002 — State filed a motion for a partial dismissal pursuant to Rule 32.6(a), Ala.R.Crim.P.
July 26, 2002 — State filed its answer to Ingram's amended Rule 32 petition.
May 20, 2004 — State filed a proposed order denying the Rule 32 petition.
June 8, 2004 — Circuit court issued an order denying Rule 32 petition.
July 16, 2004 — Ingram filed an untimely motion to reconsider.
July 16, 2004 — Ingram filed a timely notice of appeal.
July 21, 2004 — Circuit court purported to grant Ingram's untimely motion to reconsider and set aside its June 8, 2004, order denying the Rule 32 petition.
July 30, 2004 — Court of Criminal Appeals issued an order requesting that the circuit court cite this Court to any authority for setting aside its June 8, 2004, order more than 30 days after it had been entered.
September 8, 2004 — Court of Criminal Appeals issued order setting aside the circuit court's July 21, 2004, order as void for lack of jurisdiction.
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, ___ So. 2d at ___, we stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial