608 So. 2d 762 (Ala. 1992)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wyatt v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Jul 2, 1992

608 So. 2d 762 (Ala. 1992)

Summary

In Wyatt, as in the instant case, the Court was presented with a petition for certiorari to review an order of the Court of Criminal Appeals remanding that case for the trial court to enter a written order setting forth the evidence relied upon in, and the reasons for, revoking probation.

Summary of this case from McCoo v. State

See 17 Summaries

Opinion

1911040.

July 2, 1992.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Madison County, No. CC-84-755, Lynwood Smith, J.

James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Margaret S. Childers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

J. Brice Callaway, Huntsville, for appellee.

INGRAM, Justice.

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 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. See Ex 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.

Summaries of

Wyatt v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Jul 2, 1992

608 So. 2d 762 (Ala. 1992)

Summary of this case from McCoo v. State

In Wyatt, the Supreme Court, citing Brown v. State, 515 So.2d 146 (Ala.Crim.App. 1987), and Salter v. State, 470 So.2d 1360 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985), stated in dicta that this Court had erroneously attempted to circumvent the holding in Armstrong by holding that a complete written order was not necessary to satisfy due process if the transcript of the revocation hearing and the order were sufficient to establish the evidence relied on and the reason for revocation.

Summary of this case from Hodges v. State

In Wyatt v. State, 608 So.2d 762 (Ala. 1992), the Alabama Supreme Court held that the trial court must issue a written order stating the reasons for the probation revocation and the evidence it relied on, even where "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."

Summary of this case from Blankenship v. State

In Wyatt, the Supreme Court mandated that the trial court issue a written order stating the reasons for revoking probation and the evidence it relied upon, even where `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.

Summary of this case from Firth v. State

In Wyatt, the Supreme Court mandated that the trial court issue a written order setting forth its reasons for revoking probation and the evidence relied upon, even where "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."

Summary of this case from Wright v. State

In Wyatt, the Supreme Court mandated that the trial court issue a written order stating the reasons for revoking probation and the evidence it relied upon, even where "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."

Summary of this case from Springfield v. State

In Wyatt v. State, 608 So.2d 762 (Ala. 1992), the Alabama Supreme Court reiterated its holding 'that Armstrong v. State [, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (1975)] requires a written order setting forth the evidence relied upon and the reason for the revocation.

Summary of this case from Fuqua v. State

In Wyatt v. State, 608 So.2d 762 (Ala. 1992), the Alabama Supreme Court reiterated its holding 'that Ex parte Armstrong requires a written order setting forth the evidence relied upon and the reason for the revocation.

Summary of this case from Rivers v. State

In Wyatt v. State, 608 So.2d 762, 763 (Ala. 1992), the Alabama Supreme Court held that " Armstrong v. State [, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (1975),] requires a written order setting forth the evidence relied upon and the reason for the revocation.

Summary of this case from Martin v. State

In Wyatt v. State, 608 So.2d 762, 763 (Ala. 1992), the Alabama Supreme Court reaffirmed its position that " Armstrong v. State requires a written order setting forth the evidence relied upon and the reason for the revocation."

Summary of this case from Miller v. State

In Wyatt v. State, 608 So.2d 762, 763 (Ala. 1992), the Alabama Supreme Court stated: " Armstrong v. State[, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (1975)] requires a written order setting forth the evidence relied upon and the reason for the revocation.

Summary of this case from Dingler v. State

Summary of this case from Clayton v. State

In Wyatt [ v. State, 608 So.2d 762 (Ala. 1992)], the Alabama Supreme Court, when dismissing the petition, reaffirmed its holding in Armstrong and stated that the court must make written findings. 'The written statement of the reasons relied upon " 'relates to a matter of substance and not mere form' Carter v. State, 389 So.2d 601 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980)."

Summary of this case from Perry v. State

Summary of this case from Slay v. State

In Wyatt v. State, 608 So.2d 762 (Ala. 1992), the Alabama Supreme Court reiterated it holding "that Armstrong v. State [ 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (1975)] requires a written order setting forth the evidence relied upon and the reason for the revocation."

Summary of this case from Hairgrove v. State

In Wyatt, supra, the Alabama Supreme Court, when dismissing the petition, reaffirmed its holding in Armstrong and stated that the court must make written findings.

Summary of this case from DuBoise v. State

In Wyatt v. State, 608 So.2d 762 (Ala. 1992), the Alabama Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the necessity of a written order stating the reasons and evidence relied upon and impliedly overruled those cases that held that a complete written order was unnecessary if the order and the record together provided the reasons and evidence relied upon, see e.g., Brown v. State, 515 So.2d 146 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987); Salter v. State, 470 So.2d 1360 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985).

Summary of this case from Miller v. State

Wyatt v. State

Summary

Opinion

Wyatt v. State

Wyatt v. State

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Wyatt v. State

Summary

Opinion

Wyatt v. State

Wyatt v. State

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations