An Alabama trial court's authority under this rule to either summarily dismiss, or grant leave to amend, a Rule 32 petition has been firmly established and regularly followed. See, e.g., Ex parte McCall, 30 So. 2d 400, 403-04 (Ala. 2008); Apicella v. State, 87 So. 3d 1155, 1160 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011); Wilson v. State, 935 So. 2d 494, 497 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005); Miles v. State, 845 So. 2d 930, 832-33 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001); Makres v. State, 739 So. 2d 1141, 1143 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998); Harper v. State, 676 So. 2d 949, 951 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995).
The teachings of Ex parte Rhone and Ex parte Jenkins have been followed numerous times. See, e.g., Ex parte Woods, 957 So.2d 533 (Ala.2006); Anderson v. State, 135 So.3d 994 (Ala.Crim.App.2013); Ingram v. State, 103 So.3d 86 (Ala.Crim.App.2012); Apicella v. State, 87 So.3d 1155 (Ala.Crim.App.2011); Broadnax v. State, 987 So.2d 631 (Ala.Crim.App.2007); Smith v. State, 961 So.2d 916 (Ala.Crim.App.2006); and Wilson v. State, 911 So.2d 40 (Ala.Crim.App.2005).The record in this case contains no indication that any undue delay or undue prejudice would have resulted if the circuit court had granted Jones's request to amend his petition.