Ex Parte Robert Shawn Ingram (in Re Robert Shawn Ingram v. State of Alabama)

Summary

The court held that a post-conviction order adopted verbatim from the State cannot receive ordinary deference when material errors on its face show that the judge could not have independently reviewed or prepared the findings. Because the order incorrectly stated that the issuing judge had presided over the capital trial and personally observed counsel, the court reversed and remanded for consideration of the pending motions and Rule 32 petition. Justice Lyons, concurring in the result, emphasized that the order provided conclusive evidence that the judge had not read the proposed order; Justice Murdock, specially concurring, viewed the attempted rescission as additional confirmation of that conclusion.