Jenkins v. State, 105 So. 3d 1250

Jenkins was convicted of two counts of capital murder in 1991 and sentenced to death following a 10–2 jury verdict.
Appellate and postconviction history spanned decades, with multiple Rule 32 petitions and several Alabama Supreme Court decisions on juror-misconduct claims.
In 2008 Jenkins challenged a circuit court order that adopted the State’s proposed order denying relief in his second Rule 32 petition.
The State’s proposed order was signed by the circuit judge on November 25, 2008, but Jenkins did not learn of the signing until December 23, 2008; the order was later entered January 2, 2009.
Jenkins argued the circuit court did not make independent findings and simply adopted the State’s verbatim proposed order, violating Ex parte Ingram and Ex parte Scott
The Alabama Supreme Court agreed to review only the issue whether the trial court’s verbatim adoption of the State’s proposed order reflected the trial court’s independent judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court’s verbatim adoption of the State’s proposed order reflects independent judgment	Jenkins asserts the order lacks independent findings, mirroring Ex parte Ingram/Scott defects.	The circuit court adopted the State’s proposed order as its own, with deference due to such orders where independent judgment is present.	Affirmed that adoption can be valid if independent judgment is shown; reversed if not.
Whether the record demonstrates the circuit court failed to independently review Jenkins’s petition and supporting materials	Jenkins contends time and process prevented independent consideration.	Court had adequate time and evidence to review prior records; no showing of idle inaction.	Record does not definitively show lack of independent judgment; close issue but not proven.
Applicability of Ex parte Ingram and Ex parte Scott to the facts	Jenkins argues those decisions limit precedent to very narrow scenarios.	Court should apply Ingram/Scott as controlling where appropriate to ensure independent findings.	Court clarifies Ingram/Scott control but does not require identical facts for relief.

Ex parte Ingram, 51 So.3d 1119 (Ala. 2010) (requires independent findings when order adopts prevailing party’s findings; patently erroneous statements undermine independence)
Ex parte Scott, So.3d (Ala. 2011) (verbatim adoption of State’s answer as order improper; must reflect trial court’s impartial findings)
Ex parte Burgess, 21 So.3d 746 (Ala. 2008) (overruled by Burgess on juror-misconduct and procedural bars; allows overcoming Rule 32 bars if information not known)
Bell v. State, 593 So.2d 123 (Ala.Crim.App.1991) (discussed that even when adopting verbatim, findings may be trial-court findings if independent)
Ex parte Pierce, 851 So.2d 606 (Ala.2000) (juror-misconduct claims may overcome procedural bars if information was not known earlier)
State v. Freeman, 605 So.2d 1258 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (early rule on procedural bars in Rule 32 petitions)
Ingram v. State, 779 So.2d 1225 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (foundational discussion of adopting findings and standard of review)
McGahee v. State, 885 So.2d 191 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (reiterates that verbatim adopted findings are subject to review for clear error)