¶2I 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 *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 parteJenkins992 So.2d 1248, 1251 (Ala. 2007).
¶3I, 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.
¶4Lastly, 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.
¶5PARKER, J., concurs.
¶8I 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.
¶9In 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).