Ex Parte State

608 So. 2d 762, 1992 WL 148160
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided July 2, 1992·No. 1911040·Published·Cited by 121 cases

Opinion

The State of Alabama petitioned this Court for certiorari review of the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision,608 So.2d 761, in this case on the grounds that that decision conflicts with other decisions of that court. Specifically, the State argues that remand to the trial court for a written order was not necessary to meet the requirements of due process as set forth in Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100,312 So.2d 620 (1975). The State's petition, however, is premature in that the Court of Criminal Appeals has yet to issue a final judgment; therefore, we are compelled to dismiss the petition. Although we are dismissing the petition, we choose to write to *Page 763 the issue raised by the State for the benefit of the bench and bar.

In Armstrong v. State, this Court held that, among other procedural requirements, the trial court was required to make a written order setting forth the evidence relied upon and the reason for the revocation in order to meet the due process requirements in a proceeding to revoke probation. Since our decision in Armstrong v. State, this Court has addressed and affirmed the written-order requirement. SeeEx parte Lawrimore, 441 So.2d 122 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). However, in some cases the Court of Criminal Appeals has stated that a complete written order is not necessary if the transcript of the proceeding, coupled with the order, indicates the evidence relied upon by the trial court and the trial court's reason for the revocation, because the requirements of due process have been met. See Brown v. State,515 So.2d 146 (Ala.Crim.App. 1987); Salter v. State,470 So.2d 1360 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985). This Court, however, continues to hold that Armstrong v. State requires a written order setting forth the evidence relied upon and the reason for the revocation. We reiterate that that holding continues to be the law in Alabama.

PETITION DISMISSED AS PREMATURE.

HORNSBY, C.J., and ALMON, ADAMS and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ex Parte State, 608 So. 2d 762, 1992 WL 148160 (Ala. 1992).

608 So. 2d 762 (Ex Parte State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lowery Dale Wilson v. State of Alabama
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2025
Anthony v. State
271 So. 3d 854 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2018)
Gates v. State
132 So. 3d 21 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2013)
Williams v. State
138 So. 3d 342 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2013)
Washington v. State
23 So. 3d 708 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2009)
Edwards v. State
26 So. 3d 1263 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2008)
Gerstenschlager v. State
999 So. 2d 590 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2008)
Walker v. State
920 So. 2d 592 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2005)
Hill v. State
923 So. 2d 1142 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2005)
KWJ v. State
905 So. 2d 17 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2004)
McGhee v. State
912 So. 2d 534 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2004)
Boles v. State
922 So. 2d 135 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2004)
McCoo v. State
921 So. 2d 446 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2004)
Salter v. State
895 So. 2d 394 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2004)
Cherry v. State
890 So. 2d 1106 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2004)
Oden v. State
890 So. 2d 1104 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2004)
Rander v. State
882 So. 2d 369 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2003)
Richardson v. State
863 So. 2d 122 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2003)
Cain v. State
861 So. 2d 424 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2003)