I recognize the principle of stare decisis, and in light of this Court's decision in Ex parte Butler,972 So.2d 821 (Ala. 2007), that a circuit court has jurisdiction to entertain a Kirby⁷ motion for sentence reconsideration under § 13A-5-9.1, Ala. Code 1975, filed by an inmate who has been convicted of an offense that is statutorily defined as a violent offense, I concur specially in the majority's decision to consider the merits of this petition. I fully concur with this Court's decision to overrule the holding in Wells v. State, 941 So.2d 1008, 1009 (Ala.Crim.App. 2005), that "the circuit court will *Page 438 not have jurisdiction to consider any second or successive motions for reconsideration filed by that defendant in that particular case." See my special writings in Ex parteColeman, 974 So.2d 307, 308 (Ala. 2007), and Ex parteJenkins 992 So.2d 1248, 1251 (Ala. 2007).

I, however, adhere to my dissents in Ex parte Jones,953 So.2d 1210, 1210 (Ala. 2006); Holt v. State,960 So.2d 740, 744 (Ala. 2006); Ex parte Butler,972 So.2d at 827; and Ex parte Jenkins, and I continue to maintain that "if an inmate has been convicted of an offense that is defined by statute as a violent offense, he is a violent offender, and the sentencing judge or the presiding judge does not have jurisdiction to entertain the [Kirby] motion." Butler, 972 So.2d at 827.

Lastly, Justice Murdock in his special writing questions "whether a decision or an opinion of this Court constitutes `evidence' or `facts' within the contemplation of Rule 32.1(e)." Although this statement warrants further consideration, such consideration is not appropriate in this case because this Court is reviewing a judgment addressing a motion for sentence reconsideration filed pursuant to § 13A-5-9.1, Ala. Code 1975, not a judgment addressing a Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition.⁸ Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., does not provide a ground for relief from a decision on a motion for sentence reconsideration filed pursuant to § 13A-5-9.1, Ala. Code 1975; therefore, Rule 32 has no applicability to this case.

PARKER, J., concurs.

I concur in the main opinion. I write separately to note that I do not read footnote 5 of the main opinion as holding that because a case falls within one of the five categories of cases listed in Rule 39(a)(1), Ala. R.App. P., as to which this Court may consider petitions for writs of certiorari, the petitioner need not have taken whatever steps otherwise would have been necessary to preserve for appellate review the alleged error in the lower court. Under the particular circumstances presented in this case, and after carefully considering the arguments made to the Court of Criminal Appeals, I believe the alleged error has been adequately preserved for our review.

In addition, I note that the parties (as in some previous cases before this Court) consider a recent decision of this Court as "newly discovered evidence" under Rule 32.1(e), Ala. R.Crim. P. For purposes of future cases, however, I question whether a decision or an opinion of this Court constitutes "evidence" or "facts" within the contemplation of Rule 32.1(e).

The trial court summarily dismissed Victor LeShawn Gunn's Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition, which Gunn concedes was actually a second motion for reconsideration of his sentence under § 13A-5-9.1, Ala. Code 1975. The trial court dismissed Gunn's petition on the basis that, under Wells v.State, 941 So.2d 1008, 1009 (Ala.Crim.App. 2005), the trial court does not have jurisdiction to consider a successive § 13A-5-9.1 motion. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's summary dismissal on the same ground. To the extent that Wells violates the constitutional principle articulated in Kirby v. State,899 So.2d 968, 972 (Ala. 2004), that only the legislature has the authority to alter the jurisdiction of circuit courts, we hereby overrule Wells. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirming the trial court's dismissal of Gunn's petition based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and remand the case.

In March 2006, the Court of Criminal Appeals released Holtv. State, 960 So.2d 726 (Ala.Crim.App. 2006). InHolt, that court held that a trial court could not reject an application for sentence reconsideration under § 13A-5-9.1 solely on the basis that the underlying conviction was for a violent offense. Following the release ofHolt, Gunn petitioned the trial court for postconviction relief under Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., arguing that the Holt decision constituted "new evidence" under Rule 32.1(e), Ala. R.Crim. P., requiring that his sentence be vacated.³ Gunn reasoned that the principle expounded in Holt is new evidence related to sentencing, and that under Holt the trial court could not *Page 435 summarily dismiss his motion for sentence reconsideration on the ground that the underlying offense was statutorily defined as a violent offense. He argued that, in deciding his initial § 13A-5-9.1 motion for sentence reconsideration, the trial court should have considered the totality of the circumstances and that, if it had, it would not have allowed his sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole to stand.

The trial court concluded that Gunn's petition, although styled as a Rule 32 petition, operated as a successive § 13A-5-9.1 motion and summarily dismissed it on the authority of Wellsv. State, supra. In Wells, the Court of Criminal Appeals stated: "[T]he circuit court will not have jurisdiction to consider any second or successive motions for [sentence] reconsideration filed by that defendant in that particular case. Instead, it should summarily deny any such motion."

Gunn appealed, and, in an unpublished memorandum, the Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the trial court's dismissal of his petition, stating that Gunn had conceded that his Rule 32 petition was a second motion for sentence reconsideration under § 13A-5-9.1 and that, therefore, under Wells, the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the successive § 13A-5-9.1 motion. Gunn v. State (No. CR-05-1350, August 11, 2006), 988 So.2d 1082 (Ala.Crim.App. 2006) (table).

Gunn petitioned this Court for the writ of certiorari, raising three grounds under Rule 39, Ala. R.App. P. First, he argues that the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision in his case conflicts with this Court's decision in Kirby because the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision limits the trial court's jurisdiction to one § 13A-5-9.1 motion per defendant, although neither Kirby nor § 13A-5-9.1 itself imposes such a limitation. Second, Gunn argues that the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision conflicts with Ex parteSeymour, 946 So.2d 536 (Ala. 2006), because, Gunn argues,Seymour holds that "jurisdiction . . . to impose a sentence" in Rule 32.1(b), Ala. R.Crim. P., refers to subject-matter jurisdiction, and the Court of Criminal Appeals cannot alter a trial court's statutorily granted subject-matter jurisdiction. Third, Gunn argues that the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision raises a material question of first impression as to whether a Rule 32 petition is the proper avenue by which to raise a claim of newly discovered evidence concerning a previous § 13A-5-9.1 proceeding. We granted Gunn's petition for the writ of certiorari as to the first issue only — whether the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision conflicts with Kirby.⁴

"Section 6.11 of Amendment No. 328[, Ala. Const. of 1901, now § 150, Ala. Const. 1901 (Off.Recomp.),] grants this Court the authority to promulgate rules of procedure, including criminal procedure, but it prohibits this Court from enacting a rule that alters the jurisdiction of a court. Only the Legislature, within constitutional limits, has the authority to alter the jurisdiction of the circuit courts."

The Court of Criminal Appeals based its affirmance in this case on its earlier holding in Wells, in which the Court of Criminal Appeals faced a situation similar to the one now before us. The petitioner in Wells, like Gunn, had moved the trial court for reconsideration of his sentence under § 13A-5-9.1. The Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the trial court's denial of that motion and issued a certificate of judgment. A few years later, the petitioner again moved the trial court for reconsideration of his sentence under § 13A-5-9.1. The trial court summarily denied that motion. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals recognized that "neither § 13A-5-9.1, Ala. Code 1975, nor Kirby v. State,899 So.2d 968 (Ala. 2004), specifically mentions the filing of more than one such motion." Nonetheless, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that a "circuit court will not have jurisdiction to consider any second or successive motions for reconsideration." Wells, 941 So.2d at 1009. The court reasoned that, in addressing motions for reconsideration, courts "`must strike a proper balance between our interest in preserving the finality of judgments, and, *Page 437 thus, promoting the efficient administration of criminal justice, and our interest in safeguarding the rights of the accused.'" 941 So.2d at 1009 (quoting Ex parteFrazier, 562 So.2d 560, 569 (Ala. 1989)). The court concluded that, "once a circuit court has considered one motion for reconsideration of sentence filed by a defendant in a particular case, the defendant's rights with regard to that case will have been sufficiently safeguarded."941 So.2d at 1009.

Although the court in Wells correctly noted the importance of striking a proper balance between safeguarding the rights of the accused and preserving the finality of judgments, the Court of Criminal Appeals' conclusion that a trial court lacks "jurisdiction" to consider a successive § 13A-5-9.1 motion appears to be in direct conflict with the principle articulated in Kirby that the Constitution of Alabama prohibits this Court from creating rules that limit the jurisdiction of the circuit courts. The legislature specifically granted the circuit courts jurisdiction to reconsider sentences under § 13A-5-9.1, and, as both the court in Wells and the State in this case acknowledge, the plain language of the statute does not limit that jurisdiction to one motion per defendant per case. Therefore, insofar as Wells purports to impose such a jurisdictional limitation, it is overruled.⁶ Because the Court of Criminal Appeals premised its affirmance of the trial court's dismissal in the case on its holding in Wells, we reverse its judgment and remand the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.^*

LYONS, WOODALL, SMITH, and BOLIN, JJ., concur.

STUART, PARKER, and MURDOCK, JJ., concur specially.

COBB, C.J., recuses herself.