A criminal record can affect employment, housing, licensing, education, and peace of mind long after a case ends. But the first question in an Alabama expungement review is not whether the record is old, embarrassing, or causing a problem.

It is this:

What was the final disposition of the case?

That answer often determines which expungement path may be available, what waiting period applies, what documents are needed, and whether a petition should be filed at all.

Alabama’s expungement law is not one universal remedy for every arrest or conviction. Eligibility depends on the charge, the disposition, the person’s later record, the timing, and other statutory requirements. A careful review begins with the actual court record—not assumptions about what “dismissed,” “dropped,” “resolved,” or “cleared” means.

Start with the paperwork

Before assessing eligibility, obtain the official documents that show what happened in the case. Useful records may include:

• the arrest record or booking information;

• the charging instrument, citation, complaint, indictment, or case-action summary;

• the final court disposition;

• diversion, drug-court, mental-health-court, veteran’s-court, or deferred-prosecution completion records, if applicable;

• proof that fines, costs, restitution, probation, or other requirements were completed; and

• an official criminal-history record.

The records matter because the label a person uses in everyday conversation may not match the legal disposition. For example, a case that was “dropped” may have been dismissed with prejudice, dismissed without prejudice, nolle prossed, resolved through a program, or disposed of in another way. Those distinctions can change the analysis.

Why the final disposition matters

Alabama’s expungement statutes provide different eligibility routes for misdemeanor-level matters and felony matters. In both categories, the law identifies several potential paths based on the case outcome—for example, an acquittal, a no bill, a dismissal, a nolle prosequi, a quashed indictment, or successful completion of an eligible court-approved program. The applicable waiting period and additional requirements depend on the specific route. Ala. Code § 15-27-1; Ala. Code § 15-27-2.

That means an expungement screening should begin with a disposition chart—not a yes-or-no answer based only on the charge.

Final case status

Why it matters for the initial review

Acquittal or not-guilty finding

The statutes provide a potential route after the required period has passed.

No bill

The grand jury outcome may support a petition after the applicable waiting period.

Dismissal with prejudice

This disposition has a separate statutory path.

Nolle prosequi without conditions

The analysis includes timing and whether the charge was refiled.

Dismissal after a court-approved program

Completion documentation and the applicable post-completion period matter.

Dismissal without prejudice

The waiting period and later record can be critical, and the analysis differs by offense level.

Conviction

Convictions require separate analysis; eligibility is not assumed merely because time has passed.

Misdemeanor, traffic, and municipal cases

For eligible misdemeanor offenses, violations, traffic violations, and municipal-ordinance violations, Alabama law includes several nonconviction paths to a petition. It also permits petitions involving certain qualifying convictions after completion of all probation or parole requirements and payment of required amounts, passage of the statutory period, and satisfaction of other eligibility conditions.

But not every misdemeanor-level conviction is eligible. The statute contains exclusions and conditions, including provisions addressing violent offenses, sex offenses, offenses involving moral turpitude, serious traffic offenses, and certain commercial-driving circumstances. Ala. Code § 15-27-1.

The practical lesson is simple: a misdemeanor case is not automatically expungeable, but a conviction is not necessarily the end of the inquiry either.

Felony cases require their own analysis

For felony charges, Alabama law likewise provides potential expungement paths after certain nonconviction outcomes and after successful completion of specified court-approved programs. The waiting periods and conditions differ from the misdemeanor framework in important ways. Ala. Code § 15-27-2.

A felony conviction requires an even more careful review. Under the current statute, a person seeking expungement of a qualifying felony conviction must satisfy specific conditions that include obtaining a certificate of pardon with restoration of civil and political rights, waiting the required period after that certification, and meeting additional offense-based restrictions. The law excludes or limits eligibility for specified categories of offenses.

That is why the intake question should never be simply, “Was it a felony?” Counsel needs the exact offense, date, final disposition, sentence, later history, and any pardon or restoration documentation.

A petition is more than a form

An expungement petition is filed in the criminal division of the circuit court in the county where the charges were filed. The petition must be supported by a sworn statement under penalty of perjury and must include specified records, including certified case information and an official Alabama criminal-history record. It must identify the charges, the arresting agency, and relevant booking or detention agencies. The petitioner must also serve the district attorney, law-enforcement agency, and clerk of court. Ala. Code § 15-27-3.

The process may involve an objection from the prosecuting authority or a victim. Under the current procedure, an objection requires the court to set a hearing no sooner than 30 days after the objection is filed. At a hearing, the court reviews the relevant documentation and arguments; the Alabama Rules of Evidence apply. Even when no objection is filed, the court decides the petition on its merits. Act 427, SB 88.

In other words, eligibility is necessary, but it is not the only question. The petition must be accurate, complete, properly supported, and filed in the correct court.

What an expungement order can do—and what it does not do

When an expungement petition is granted, Alabama law generally directs the expungement of court and agency records related to the matter, subject to statutory exceptions. The proceedings are generally deemed never to have occurred, and courts and agencies ordinarily respond to inquiries as though no record exists. The statute also generally provides that the person whose record was expunged need not disclose the record on employment, credit, or other applications. Ala. Code § 15-27-6.

But expungement is not the same as saying the matter disappears for every purpose. The statute includes exceptions and disclosure obligations, including circumstances involving government regulatory or licensing agencies, utilities and their agents or affiliates, and banks or other financial institutions. Other statutory provisions also govern access to expunged records in specified contexts.

That is why an expungement consultation should include the client’s actual objective. Is the record causing an employment problem? A professional-licensing issue? A housing concern? A background-check question? A firearm or civil-rights question? The answer may affect what additional advice the client needs after the expungement analysis.

The Alabama expungement intake checklist

A person considering expungement should gather the following before meeting with counsel:

Item

Why it matters

Case number and county

Identifies the court with jurisdiction and the correct records to obtain.

Exact charge or charges

Eligibility can depend on the specific offense, not the client’s general description of the case.

Final disposition

This is the starting point for determining a possible statutory route.

Date of the disposition or program completion

Waiting periods are measured from particular events.

Proof of completed conditions

Probation, restitution, fines, costs, treatment, or program requirements may matter.

Official criminal-history record

The statute requires an official record and later history can affect eligibility.

Information about charges that were refiled or remain pending

A dismissal may not support a petition if the matter was refiled or remains unresolved.

Any prior expungement petitions or orders

The sworn statement must address prior expungement applications and grants.

The client’s practical concern

Helps identify related issues involving employment, housing, licensing, or background checks.

Five questions to ask before assuming a record can be expunged

1. What does the official court record say happened?

2. What was the exact offense level and final disposition?

3. How much time has passed since the relevant event?

4. Were all court-ordered and program requirements completed?

5. Has anything happened since then that affects the statutory analysis?

Those questions do not replace a legal review. They make the review faster, more accurate, and less likely to rest on incomplete information.

Bottom line

The final disposition is the starting point—not the ending point—of an Alabama expungement analysis. A favorable result, a completed program, a long-past conviction, or an old arrest may create a possible path, but each path has its own requirements.

The most productive first step is to gather the official record, identify the exact disposition, and review the case under the current expungement statutes. That approach helps clients understand whether they may have a path forward and helps counsel prepare a complete, supportable petition when expungement is available.

This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Eligibility for expungement depends on the current law, the specific charge and disposition, applicable waiting periods, the person’s record, and other facts. A person considering expungement should seek advice about the particular case and records involved.

From July 31 through August 14, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals issued a steady stream of criminal-case entries. But the docket did not yield a published merits opinion creating a new rule for practitioners to cite.

Instead, the Court’s releases fell into two categories:

• rehearing denials in appeals previously decided; and

• affirmances by memorandum in new appeals.

That can look like a quiet period in criminal law. It is not. It is a useful reminder that appellate monitoring has two jobs: identify new precedent when the Court announces it, and identify case-status signals when the Court does not.

The distinction matters for lawyers handling individual appeals, lawyers monitoring recurring issues, and firms deciding what belongs in a public case-law update.

The three-week pattern

July 31: six rehearing denials

On July 31, the Court overruled rehearing applications in Etherton v. City of Rainsville, Martin v. Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles, P.A. v. State, Culver v. State, Floyd v. State, and George v. State.

August 7: five rehearing denials

The August 7 docket likewise consisted of rehearing denials in Johnson v. State, Miles v. State, Boone v. State, Perez v. State, and Mitchell v. State.

August 14: new memorandum affirmances, plus rehearing activity

The August 14 docket included memorandum affirmances in Hawkins v. Alabama Department of Corrections and Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles, Burlison v. City of Boaz, Tinsley v. Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles, and Funderburg v. Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles. The Court also overruled rehearing in Harris v. City of Gulf Shores, State v. Scott, Brunson v. State, and Parker v. State.

The publicly available entries do not disclose the underlying offenses, facts, or legal reasoning in the memorandum cases. Accordingly, this post does not infer substantive holdings from captions or docket labels.

What a memorandum affirmance means—and does not mean

Under Alabama Rule of Appellate Procedure 54, the Court of Criminal Appeals may affirm without a published opinion when an opinion would serve no significant precedential purpose. The Court still prepares a memorandum addressing the appellant’s contentions and the reasons for rejecting them, but the memorandum is not published in the official reports. A no-opinion affirmance or memorandum has no precedential value and generally may not be cited in briefs or arguments, subject to narrow exceptions for such matters as law of the case, res judicata, collateral estoppel, double jeopardy, or procedural bar. Ala. R. App. P. 54.

For the broader criminal-defense bar, that means a memorandum affirmance is not a new authority to add to a motion, brief, or CLE outline. It does not show that the Court has announced a new rule on suppression, sentencing, jury selection, confrontation, or postconviction procedure.

For counsel in the case, however, the memorandum is essential. It explains the result that must be evaluated on rehearing, in a possible certiorari petition, or in deciding what the judgment means for the client.

A better way to read a weekly appellate docket

A weekly docket should not be sorted into only two categories: “important” and “unimportant.” The more useful question is what the entry requires the lawyer to do.

Docket event

What it means for the broader bar

What it means for counsel in the case

Published merits opinion

Potential new precedent; read, analyze, and assess whether it changes practice.

Evaluate the holding, remedy, rehearing options, and any next appellate step.

Memorandum affirmance

No new citable doctrine; monitor for issue trends but do not treat it as authority.

Obtain and analyze the memorandum, preserve issues, and advise the client on next steps.

Rehearing denied

Usually no new doctrine or rationale.

Evaluate discretionary review, finality, and case-specific consequences immediately.

Certificate of judgment

A finality signal, not a merits ruling.

Confirm the effect of finality in the case and assess any remaining remedies or deadlines.

This three-week run is an example of why a law firm should monitor more than published opinions. A docket full of memorandum affirmances and rehearing denials may not justify multiple public “case roundup” posts. But it does require disciplined internal monitoring, because clients do not experience a rehearing denial or certificate of judgment as a quiet week.

The defense-side lesson: memorandum cases still require a record strategy

The Court’s choice not to issue a published opinion does not mean the appeal lacked an issue worth preserving. It means the disposition does not serve as precedent for everyone else.

Counsel handling a memorandum affirmance should immediately obtain and review the memorandum, original briefs, record citations, rehearing materials, and the exact order issued by the Court. The questions are case-specific:

• What issue did the memorandum reject?

• Did the rehearing application identify the overlooked law or fact with sufficient particularity?

• If the memorandum omitted facts or stated them inadequately, did counsel include the statement of facts required for later review?

• Is there a genuine ground for Alabama Supreme Court certiorari, rather than simply a disagreement with the result?

• What is the client’s actual objective if further review is pursued?

In an ordinary criminal case, rehearing in the Court of Criminal Appeals is generally a prerequisite to certiorari review. Rule 40 also makes the rehearing application the place to present a fact statement when the court’s memorandum has none, or to propose additional or corrected facts when necessary. Ala. R. App. P. 40.

That is not a technicality. Under Rule 39, a certiorari petition may need to reproduce, verbatim and with record references, a fact statement that was presented on rehearing but not adopted by the Court of Criminal Appeals. Ala. R. App. P. 39.

Why these weeks produced no new appellate rule to analyze

For criminal practitioners, the key fact is not that the Court issued several entries. It is that none of those entries contains a new, published legal holding.

A rehearing-denied notice tells the reader only that the Court declined to change its earlier decision. A memorandum affirmance resolves the individual appeal, but Rule 54 prevents counsel from treating the memorandum as citable authority in the next case. Neither type of entry supports a reliable claim that the Court has changed Alabama law on suppression, sentencing, evidence, postconviction procedure, municipal appeals, parole, or any other recurring issue.

That is why these dockets do not yield a conventional case-law analysis. There is no written, precedential reasoning to parse, compare with earlier cases, or apply to a different client’s facts. The responsible conclusion is limited: these cases reached procedural or appellate endpoints, but the public docket does not disclose a new rule for the criminal-law bar.

What lawyers should take from the absence of a published holding

The absence of a new opinion does not mean the Court’s work was insignificant. It means the lessons are narrower and case-specific.

• For lawyers with cases on these dockets: obtain the memorandum, review the rehearing record, calendar finality, and assess whether a genuine basis exists for further review.

• For lawyers following Alabama criminal law generally: do not treat the captions, court names, or outcomes as evidence that the Court endorsed a proposition of law that can be used in another case.

• For lawyers watching recurring practice areas: note the categories of cases that appear—such as municipal matters, parole or corrections litigation, postconviction matters, and direct criminal appeals—but wait for a published opinion or an accessible underlying memorandum before drawing a doctrinal conclusion.

This distinction protects against a common appellate-monitoring error: treating a large docket as a large body of law. A docket may be busy while the precedential law remains unchanged.

Bottom line

The July 31, August 7, and August 14 dockets did not create a new body of published Alabama criminal law. But they demonstrate a core appellate reality: published precedent is only one part of the work.

For the broader bar, the absence of a published opinion means there is no new authority to cite. For counsel in the affected appeals, a memorandum affirmance or rehearing denial may be the most important development of the case.

The right practice is to track both: read published opinions for doctrine, and read individual docket events for deadlines, preservation, finality, and client advice.

This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It summarizes publicly available Court of Criminal Appeals entries issued July 31, August 7, and August 14, 2026. It does not purport to describe the undisclosed reasoning or merits of the underlying memorandum decisions.

Three children are dead. Any discussion of the Lindsay Clancy trial that begins anywhere else has already lost its moral footing.

That fact does not make the legal question easy. It makes it harder.

The public wants a clean story: either a mother was gravely ill and failed by the people charged with helping her, or she deliberately murdered her children and must be punished accordingly. Those stories are emotionally satisfying because they assign the horror to a single source. The trial does not permit that convenience.

The question for the jury is not whether postpartum illness is real. It is. It is not whether psychiatric suffering can be profound. It can. And it is not whether the deaths of three children demand grief, outrage, and an accounting. They do.

The legal question is narrower and more exacting: at the time of the killings, was Lindsay Clancy criminally responsible for what she did?

That distinction is not semantic. It is the entire case.

Recent testimony has focused on Clancy’s psychiatric treatment, medications, reported decline, family observations, and the information she searched for before the children’s deaths. AP’s trial coverage and its reporting on the search evidence make clear why the facts will be so difficult for any jury to process. AP’s report on pre-death searches

A Diagnosis Explains Nothing by Itself—and Excuses Nothing by Itself

There is a temptation, particularly online, to treat a diagnosis as a verdict. It is not.

A psychiatric diagnosis may be indispensable evidence. It may help a jury understand perceptions, beliefs, impulses, judgment, cognition, or the collapse of ordinary functioning. It may help explain conduct that otherwise appears unimaginable. But diagnosis is not a magic word. The law does not ask whether a defendant had a diagnosis, took medication, suffered from depression, or was in crisis. It asks what the illness did to the defendant’s legally relevant capacities at the time of the act.

That is not a cold or technical distinction. It is the safeguard that prevents criminal responsibility from being decided by labels, headlines, or our personal reaction to a tragedy.

The converse is equally important. The fact that a defendant’s actions are horrific does not answer the criminal-responsibility question either. Horror is not proof of a legally sound mental state. A jury may conclude that a person did something dreadful and still confront credible evidence that severe mental illness impaired the very capacities the law requires for criminal blame.

Those are not contradictory propositions. They are the difficult work of a criminal justice system that claims to distinguish what happened from what a person was capable of understanding or controlling when it happened.

No one should confuse that inquiry with indifference toward the victims. The children are not a footnote to a debate about psychiatric terminology. They are the reason the question of responsibility matters so much.

The Evidence Will Not Arrive Neatly Sorted

The prosecution’s theory, as publicly reported, is that the killings were intentional and premeditated. The defense position is that Clancy’s postpartum psychiatric condition left her not criminally responsible. AP’s overview of the trial

Both sides will point to facts that the public will be tempted to treat as conclusive. They are not.

A search history can look like planning. It can also be evidence of terror, suicidal thinking, a desperate search for an explanation, or a person trying to understand an unraveling mind. A medication record can look like evidence that someone was receiving care. It can also raise questions about whether care was adequate, whether symptoms were recognized, and whether treatment itself was changing. Family testimony can establish warning signs. It can also reveal the terrible limits of what loved ones can see, understand, or stop.

None of that means all interpretations are equally persuasive. It means a criminal case cannot be responsibly decided by selecting one fact, attaching a preferred story to it, and calling the work finished.

“Not Criminally Responsible” Does Not Mean “Nothing Happens”

Public conversation about mental-responsibility defenses often collapses into a familiar accusation: the defendant is “getting away with it.” That phrase is usually more rhetorical than accurate.

A finding that a defendant is not criminally responsible is not a declaration that nothing happened, that no one suffered, or that the defendant is simply sent home. Reporting on this case notes that a lack-of-criminal-responsibility verdict would result in commitment to a state mental-health facility rather than an unqualified release. AP’s August 18 report

That result may not satisfy every person’s sense of retribution. It is not designed to. Criminal punishment rests on culpability. If a person’s mental condition negated the legal capacity necessary for culpability, the state is not being soft by recognizing that limit; it is applying the premise that punishment is for the blameworthy, not merely for the tragic.

That premise should not be controversial. It is one of the few restraints that keeps criminal law from becoming a mechanism for converting every catastrophe into vengeance.

The Medical-System Questions Are Real—But They Are Not the Jury’s Only Job

The Clancy case rightly raises broader questions about postpartum psychiatric care: whether warning signs were recognized, whether treatment and monitoring were adequate, whether medications were appropriately managed, and whether families are given meaningful guidance when a loved one is deteriorating.

Those questions matter. They may have consequences in civil litigation, professional regulation, institutional reform, and ordinary family decision-making. Reporting indicates that the events also overlap with a malpractice lawsuit concerning the care Clancy received. AP’s report on psychiatric-care testimony

But it is a mistake to make the criminal jury carry the full weight of those failures—or to pretend that proof of a system failure automatically resolves individual criminal responsibility. A jury must decide the case under the legal standard it is given, based on the evidence it hears. It cannot rewrite mental-health care. It cannot punish clinicians who are not on trial. It cannot use a murder verdict to express anger at a health-care system, however warranted that anger may be.

The public, however, has a wider obligation. It should be asking why families in crisis so often have to recognize psychiatric emergency without a clear pathway to immediate, coordinated, competent help.

We Can Hold More Than One Truth at a Time

The urge to choose one moral frame is understandable. It is also inadequate.

We can say, without qualification, that three children deserved to live and that their deaths are devastating. We can say that a parent’s severe mental illness, if proved, should be taken with the utmost seriousness. We can demand rigorous accountability from every institution that may have missed danger. And we can insist that a criminal verdict be based on the law of responsibility—not on slogans about mothers, mental illness, punishment, or sympathy.

That is not pulling punches. It is refusing to use the dead children as props in a culture-war argument, or to use a severely ill defendant as a symbol in a debate that has little patience for legal precision.

The Clancy trial is not a referendum on whether postpartum illness is real. It is not a referendum on whether the medical system fails women. It is not a referendum on whether grief should produce punishment.

It is a criminal trial. Its question is brutal and specific: whether the prosecution has established criminal responsibility in the face of evidence that the defense says shows a profound psychiatric break.

A just result requires the jury to take the children’s deaths with full seriousness. It also requires the jury to take the legal meaning of mental illness with full seriousness.

Anything less is not justice. It is performance.

This essay addresses public reporting and general principles of criminal responsibility. It does not express a view on what the jury should decide, and it does not replace the governing jury instructions or the trial record.

A memorandum affirmance followed by a one-line rehearing denial creates a familiar appellate problem: the client wants to know what happened next, but the court has provided no new analysis and the deadline for Alabama Supreme Court review is already running.

The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals’ July 24, 2026 orders in Mann v. State, Smith v. State, and Ramirez v. State provide a useful prompt for a broader question: what should criminal appellate counsel do in the 14 days after rehearing is denied?

This is not a recap of the July 24 cases. The public entries disclose only that rehearing was overruled after June 18 memorandum affirmances. They do not reveal the offenses, facts, claims, or reasons for the underlying decisions. Instead, the docket illustrates a repeatable post-rehearing workflow for counsel handling any memorandum affirmance in the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.

The first mistake: treating the rehearing denial as a second merits opinion

A notice overruling rehearing does not explain why the court rejected the application. It does not expand the court’s reasoning, create a new rule, or turn the earlier memorandum into citable authority.

Under Alabama Rule of Appellate Procedure 54, a no-opinion affirmance or memorandum issued by the Court of Criminal Appeals has no precedential value and generally may not be cited in briefs or arguments, except for specified preclusion-related purposes. Ala. R. App. P. 54.

The question after rehearing is therefore not, “What new doctrine did the court announce?” It is, “What record did we preserve, what result became final, and is there a disciplined basis for discretionary review?”

The first 48 hours: conduct a file audit

Before deciding whether to seek certiorari, appellate counsel should assemble the materials that matter to the next decision:

• the Court of Criminal Appeals’ underlying opinion or memorandum;

• the original briefs and record citations supporting the issue;

• the rehearing application and supporting brief;

• any response to rehearing;

• the rehearing-overruled notice or order;

• the relevant clerk’s record and reporter’s transcript excerpts; and

• the client’s current objective and the scope of representation.

This is not paperwork for paperwork’s sake. A certiorari petition is not a second opening brief. It requires counsel to identify a limited, review-worthy question and present it through the factual and procedural record that has already been built.

Audit the facts before you audit the law

A memorandum disposition creates a particular risk: the Alabama Supreme Court ordinarily limits its review to the facts stated in the Court of Criminal Appeals’ opinion or memorandum unless the petitioner uses the procedure in Rule 39(d)(5).

That makes the rehearing application critical. In a criminal case, if the memorandum contains no statement of facts, the rehearing applicant must include a statement of facts. If the memorandum states facts inaccurately or incompletely, the applicant may present an additional or corrected statement. Ala. R. App. P. 40.

For a later certiorari petition, any additional, corrected, or independent fact statement presented on rehearing must be reproduced verbatim, with record references and verification, if the Court of Criminal Appeals did not incorporate it into a later opinion or memorandum. Ala. R. App. P. 39.

The practical consequence is stark: if the key factual context was not put before the Court of Criminal Appeals on rehearing, it may be difficult to place it before the Alabama Supreme Court at the petition stage.

The 14-day question: is there a certiorari case, not merely a losing appeal?

A petition for writ of certiorari from a Court of Criminal Appeals decision is generally due within 14 days after the rehearing ruling. The petition must identify a ground recognized by Rule 39; certiorari is discretionary, not a second direct appeal. Ala. R. App. P. 39.

The initial screening question should be whether the case fits a certiorari ground—not whether counsel can restate every argument from the Court of Criminal Appeals.

| Screening question                                                                                                | Why it matters                                                                                                                                       |
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Is there a genuine conflict with controlling authority?                                                           | A conflict theory must be specific and explain why the lower-court result cannot be reconciled with prior authority.                                 |
| Is there a material question of first impression for the Alabama Supreme Court?                                   | The issue must be important enough to justify discretionary review, not merely new to the individual case.                                           |
| Did the decision initially construe or affect a qualifying constitutional, statutory, or public-officer question? | Rule 39 identifies limited categories that may support review.                                                                                       |
| Is a controlling Alabama Supreme Court precedent directly implicated?                                             | Rule 39 allows a petitioner to seek reconsideration of controlling Supreme Court authority, but that request must be direct and candid.              |
| Does the case have a client-centered reason for further review?                                                   | Counsel should assess the practical consequence of the issue: conviction, sentence, retrial exposure, collateral effects, or postconviction posture. |

A memorandum affirmance does not eliminate a possible conflict argument. Rule 39 accounts for the circumstance in which no opinion was issued or no language in an opinion clearly exposes the conflict. But the petitioner must then explain with particularity how the decision conflicts with prior authority.

Do not separate the merits question from the remedy question

Before recommending further review, counsel should identify what success would actually accomplish.

For one client, the issue may affect the validity of a conviction. For another, it may concern sentence structure, jail credit, restitution, probation conditions, or the procedural ability to seek later relief. The same legal issue can have different value depending on the available remedy and the client’s priorities.

The client conversation after rehearing should therefore include more than the appellate deadline. It should address:

• what the underlying memorandum left in place;

• what a successful certiorari petition could realistically change;

• the cost and scope of additional representation;

• any practical consequences of waiting for finality; and

• any other deadlines that must be assessed in the individual case.

Calendar two dates, not one

The certiorari deadline is not the same as the certificate-of-judgment date.

Rule 41 provides that the Court of Criminal Appeals’ certificate of judgment ordinarily issues 18 days after an order denying rehearing, unless the time is changed by order. A timely certiorari petition stays issuance of the certificate until the Alabama Supreme Court finally disposes of the petition. Ala. R. App. P. 41.

Counsel should immediately calendar:

• the 14-day certiorari deadline; and

• the expected certificate-of-judgment date if no timely petition is filed.

Those dates perform different functions. Missing the first may end the opportunity for Supreme Court review. Ignoring the second can lead to avoidable confusion about when the intermediate appellate judgment becomes final.

The July 24 examples

The July 24 docket offers three illustrations of this workflow. In Mann, Smith, and Ramirez, the Court of Criminal Appeals had affirmed by memorandum on June 18 and then overruled rehearing on July 24.

The public entries do not permit substantive commentary on the individual appeals. But they show why counsel needs a routine post-rehearing process: retrieve the memorandum, inspect the rehearing record, test the case against Rule 39, calendar finality, and advise the client before the short window closes.

Bottom line

A rehearing denial is not simply the last line of an appeal. It is a decision point.

The strongest post-rehearing practice is not reflexively filing a certiorari petition and not reflexively closing the file. It is a fast, disciplined review of the factual record, the available Rule 39 ground, the actual remedy, and the client’s objective.

The July 24 orders in Mann, Smith, and Ramirez are reminders of that process—not new precedent. When an appellate court provides no new reasoning, counsel’s job is to identify whether the record already contains the right case for further review.

This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It uses the publicly available July 24, 2026 Court of Criminal Appeals rehearing orders as examples of post-rehearing procedure. It does not purport to describe the undisclosed merits or reasoning in the underlying memorandum decisions.

When someone you love is arrested or charged with a crime, the first days can feel chaotic. Families may be trying to arrange release, locate paperwork, answer calls, manage work and childcare, and understand what comes next—all while worrying about the person at the center of the case.

More than sixty years ago, the United States Supreme Court decided Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). The Court held that the right to counsel is fundamental to a fair criminal process and that states must provide counsel to indigent defendants charged with felony offenses.

That right matters because criminal cases move through procedures that are difficult to navigate alone. But appointing or retaining a lawyer is only the beginning. Families can often help defense counsel act quickly by gathering reliable information, preserving materials that may disappear, and avoiding actions that create new problems.

This checklist is a practical starting point for families. It is not a substitute for advice from counsel in the individual case.

Subscribe now

First: confirm who represents the client

Before sharing case information widely, confirm:

• the name of the attorney or public defender assigned to the case;

• the attorney’s office, telephone number, and preferred method for family contact;

• the next court date, if known; and

• whether the lawyer has permission from the client to communicate with a particular family member.

A lawyer’s primary duty is to the client. The attorney may be limited in what they can discuss with family members without the client’s permission, even when the family is paying for representation or providing essential support. That does not mean family information is unimportant. It means the lawyer must protect the client’s confidentiality and follow the client’s direction.

Gather the basic case information

Create one page with the information the family knows. Include:

• the client’s full legal name and date of birth;

• the jail or detention facility, booking number, and custody status, if applicable;

• arrest date, time, and location;

• arresting agency and any officer names or badge numbers shown on paperwork;

• case number, court, and charges listed on the citation, warrant, complaint, or bond paperwork;

• bond amount, conditions, and release information; and

• the date, time, and location of the next court appearance.

Use the paperwork itself when possible. Do not rely only on memory or social-media posts. If a document is missing, note that rather than guessing.

Preserve information that may not still exist later

Some of the most useful evidence in a criminal case is time-sensitive. Tell defense counsel promptly about possible sources of information, including:

• surveillance cameras near an arrest location, residence, business, parking lot, intersection, or venue;

• dash-camera, body-camera, doorbell-camera, or private-security video;

• 911 calls, dispatch information, photographs, text messages, call logs, or location data;

• witnesses who saw or heard relevant events;

• physical evidence, clothing, property, receipts, or documents; and

• medical treatment, injuries, or conditions that may be relevant to the events or to observed behavior.

Families should provide counsel with the location of potential evidence and the reason it may matter. They should not alter, delete, edit, post, or circulate the material. They also should not contact a represented opposing party, attempt to influence a witness, or ask anyone to change a version of events.

Prepare a reliable timeline

A simple timeline can be more useful than a long narrative. Start with the day before the event and continue through the arrest, booking, release, or first court date.

Include:

• where the client was and who was present;

• work, school, medical, travel, or family events that establish timing;

• contacts with law enforcement;

• any search, test, interview, or medical treatment; and

• names and contact information for people with firsthand knowledge.

Separate what someone personally saw or heard from what someone was told later. Label estimates as estimates. Counsel can investigate and compare the timeline with reports, video, dispatch logs, and other evidence.

Identify information that may affect release, sentencing, or case planning

Some information may not decide guilt or innocence, but it can still matter to release conditions, treatment planning, sentencing, or mitigation. Gather it carefully and share it with counsel:

• employment history, current job information, and work schedule;

• school enrollment, certifications, or training;

• stable housing and responsible family contacts;

• caregiving responsibilities for children, older relatives, or other dependents;

• military service, if applicable;

• medical, mental-health, or substance-use treatment information that the client wants counsel to consider;

• documentation of treatment, recovery, counseling, or support programs; and

• character references from people who can provide accurate, firsthand information.

Do not manufacture a “good character” packet or pressure anyone to write a letter. Accuracy and credibility matter more than volume.

Protect the client from avoidable communication problems

Families often want to explain the situation or defend the client publicly. That instinct is understandable, but public communication can complicate a defense.

Avoid public discussion of the facts

Do not post about the arrest, charges, alleged victim, witnesses, police officers, or evidence. Do not argue the case in comments, direct messages, neighborhood groups, or online fundraisers. A social-media post can be preserved, misunderstood, or used in ways the family did not expect.

Do not discuss the facts on recorded jail calls

Jail calls and messages may be monitored or recorded. The client should follow counsel’s guidance about communication. Families should avoid using calls or messages to collect a detailed factual account, relay information to third parties, or coordinate what anyone should say.

Do not contact witnesses about testimony

A family member may know a witness and believe a conversation would help. It may not. Contact with witnesses can create misunderstandings, accusations of pressure, or new evidentiary issues. Give the witness’s name and contact information to counsel instead.

Preserve, do not edit

If the family has relevant texts, photographs, video, messages, or documents, keep the original material. Do not crop, annotate, delete, forward broadly, or create a “cleaned-up” version. Note when and how the material was obtained, then provide it to counsel through the method counsel requests.

The family intake checklist

TaskWhat to collect or doWhy it helpsConfirm representationAttorney name, office contact information, next court date, and communication permissionsEnsures the family shares information through the right channel.Gather official paperworkCitation, warrant, bond papers, booking sheet, charging documents, and court noticesEstablishes the known charges, court, conditions, and deadlines.Create a timelineDates, times, locations, firsthand witnesses, and major eventsHelps counsel investigate and test the State’s narrative.Identify evidenceVideo locations, messages, photographs, dispatch information, records, and physical evidenceSome evidence may be overwritten or lost quickly.Identify witnessesNames, contact information, and what each person personally knowsAllows counsel to assess and contact witnesses appropriately.Gather stability and mitigation materialEmployment, housing, caregiving, school, treatment, and support informationMay assist with release, case planning, or sentencing advocacy.Protect communicationsKeep case facts off social media and out of recorded calls; do not contact witnesses about testimonyReduces the risk of avoidable damage to the defense.Follow conditionsReview bond terms, court dates, and no-contact or travel restrictionsHelps the client avoid new allegations or consequences.

What families should expect from the defense process

Counsel may need time to obtain discovery, review reports and recordings, investigate witnesses, research legal issues, file motions, negotiate, or prepare for a hearing or trial. The fact that a lawyer cannot provide an immediate final answer does not mean nothing is happening.

Families can help most by being organized, candid, and patient. Give counsel accurate information, identify time-sensitive evidence, follow instructions about communication, and tell counsel promptly if there is a new arrest, a change in contact information, a missed court date, a new witness, or a potential violation of release conditions.

What Gideon still means

Gideon recognized a basic truth: a person accused of a crime cannot be expected to navigate the criminal process alone simply because that person lacks money to hire an attorney. Counsel helps protect legal rights, evaluate the evidence, challenge the prosecution’s proof where appropriate, advise the client, and present the client’s position in court.

Families cannot take over that role. But they can help counsel do it well by preserving facts, gathering documents, identifying witnesses, supporting the client’s compliance with court conditions, and allowing the legal strategy to develop through the attorney-client relationship.

A final reminder

Every case is different. A family should not assume that information found online, advice from another case, or a generalized checklist determines what will happen in this one. The best next step is to give the client’s attorney accurate materials and ask how the family can support the defense without interfering with it.

This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship. A person facing criminal charges should seek advice from qualified counsel about the specific facts, charges, deadlines, and court procedures involved.

A DUI case is rarely won by filing every available motion. It is more often shaped by identifying the evidence that matters, finding the legal and factual pressure points early, and creating a record that allows the trial court to decide those issues—and an appellate court to review them if necessary.

For Alabama criminal-defense counsel, the most effective pretrial-motion strategy begins with an evidence map, not a boilerplate pleading. The central questions are practical:

• What did the officer actually observe before the stop, during the detention, and at arrest?

• What do the videos, dispatch records, reports, and test records show—and what do they omit?

• Is the prosecution relying on roadside observations, field-sobriety exercises, a breath result, a blood result, statements, or some combination of those categories?

• Which issues are candidates for exclusion or suppression, and which are better developed as factual challenges for cross-examination or trial?

A recent decision, McMillian v. State, CR-2023-0898 (Ala. Crim. App. June 27, 2025), illustrates the preservation point. The Court of Criminal Appeals rejected a challenge to blood-draw evidence where the defense did not file a pretrial suppression motion, did not make a sufficiently specific legal and factual challenge during trial, and did not object when related evidence was introduced. The lesson is not that blood evidence cannot be challenged. It is that the challenge must be timely and specific.

Start with an evidence map

Before deciding which motions to file, gather and organize the materials that support—or undermine—the State’s DUI theory. The review should include, as available:

• citation, arrest report, offense report, and supplemental reports;

• dispatch/CAD records and 911 audio;

• dash-camera, body-camera, booking-room, and station video;

• the full timeline from first observation through release, booking, or testing;

• field-sobriety documentation and any related training or administration records;

• breath-test tickets, instrument records, observation-period information, and maintenance or inspection material, when applicable;

• blood-draw warrant materials, return, affidavits, hospital records, collection documentation, laboratory materials, and chain-of-custody records, when applicable;

• witness statements, crash materials, photographs, and medical information relevant to observed impairment; and

• any client medical condition, injury, medication, disability, or environmental fact that bears on the officer’s observations or roadside exercises.

The evidence map should answer a basic but often neglected question: What is the State’s proof of impairment, and what proof is merely cumulative or vulnerable? A motion strategy is strongest when it targets evidence that changes the case, not simply evidence that exists.

Separate suppression questions from trial-proof questions

Not every problem with DUI evidence is a suppression issue. Counsel should separate the issues into two tracks.

Suppression or exclusion candidates

A motion may be appropriate when the defense can articulate a concrete legal and factual basis to challenge:

• the initial stop;

• the scope or length of a detention;

• the arrest;

• a search of the client, vehicle, or personal property;

• a warrant, affidavit, warrant scope, or warrant execution;

• a compelled blood draw;

• a statement or custodial interrogation; or

• a particular item of evidence that was obtained unlawfully.

The motion should identify the evidence to be suppressed, the specific legal basis, the material facts, and the requested relief. A broad statement that a search, seizure, or blood draw was “unreasonable” does not tell the trial court what factual dispute or legal defect it must decide.

Issues that may be stronger at trial

Other problems may not support suppression but can be central to reasonable doubt, cross-examination, or the weight of the evidence. Examples include:

• lighting, weather, terrain, traffic, footwear, injury, fatigue, or medical conditions affecting roadside performance;

• inconsistencies between video and the officer’s description of speech, balance, demeanor, or driving;

• the timing of observations versus the timing of a chemical test;

• the limits of retrograde extrapolation or other expert inferences;

• the distinction between the presence of a substance and actual impairment at the time of driving; and

• omissions, mistakes, or changes in the officer’s reports.

The point is not to avoid motions. It is to avoid trying to force every credibility or proof issue into a suppression framework that does not fit.

Build the motion plan around the State’s proof

1. Challenge the stop, detention, and arrest as distinct events

The initial basis for the stop may differ from the basis for continued detention, field-sobriety exercises, arrest, or chemical testing. Treating the entire roadside encounter as a single event can obscure the actual legal analysis.

A useful motion investigation asks:

• What specific fact did the officer rely on to initiate the stop or encounter?

• When did the initial mission of the stop end or change?

• What new facts did the officer claim justified additional questioning, testing, or detention?

• When did the officer contend probable cause existed for arrest?

• Does the video support the sequence and timing described in the reports?

Organizing the timeline this way may reveal that the strongest issue concerns the extension of the stop or the transition from a routine encounter to a custodial investigation—not necessarily the original traffic infraction.

2. Treat field-sobriety evidence as both a discovery and a trial-preparation issue

Field-sobriety evidence often carries persuasive force because it appears visual and immediate. That makes the underlying conditions and instructions important.

Counsel should compare the report to the video and investigate the details: the testing surface, lighting, weather, footwear, physical limitations, injuries, language barriers, distractions, officer instructions, and the client’s actual responses. Counsel should also identify whether the officer’s narrative of “clues” is visible on video or rests primarily on interpretation.

Some deficiencies may support a targeted evidentiary objection or motion, depending on the circumstances. Others will be more effectively addressed through cross-examination and a defense narrative that gives the fact-finder a reason to question the reliability of the officer’s conclusions.

3. Treat blood and breath evidence as separate litigation tracks

A chemical result is not a single piece of evidence. It is the endpoint of a sequence of decisions and procedures.

For a blood case, counsel should examine the legal authority for the draw, the warrant materials if a warrant was used, the scope and execution of the warrant, the collection setting, the identity and role of personnel involved, the timing of draws, the collection and labeling procedure, the chain of custody, laboratory documentation, and the prosecution’s theory connecting the result to the time of driving.

For a breath case, counsel should obtain and review the relevant testing documentation, timing records, observation information, instrument-generated records, and other material supporting the State’s foundation. The factual questions may include what occurred before the test, how the test was administered, what the records show, and whether the State can establish the required evidentiary foundation.

The motion decision should follow the evidence. If there is a concrete legal defect in how chemical evidence was obtained, a suppression motion may be necessary. If the concern goes to reliability, timing, interpretation, or foundation, counsel should determine whether the better vehicle is discovery, a motion in limine, an evidentiary objection, expert consultation, cross-examination, or some combination.

4. Do not overlook statements and video

DUI cases often include statements made roadside, in a patrol car, at a station, or in a medical setting. Review the entire recording, not just the excerpt identified by the report. Determine when the client was detained or arrested, what questions were asked, whether warnings were given where required, and whether the prosecution intends to use any statements for its case in chief or another purpose.

Video can create its own evidentiary issues. Confirm that the production is complete, identify gaps and unexplained start or stop points, preserve the original format where possible, and compare timestamps across video, dispatch logs, reports, and chemical-test records.

Preservation is part of the strategy

McMillian is a useful warning against waiting until trial to make an undeveloped objection. In that case, an oral assertion that a blood draw was “unreasonable” did not preserve a Fourth Amendment challenge where no specific basis was given and the defense did not object when the related evidence was later introduced.

The better practice is to make the court’s task clear:

• File early when the basis is known. A written motion identifies the exact evidence, grounds, disputed facts, and requested hearing.

• Create a record at the hearing. Offer the relevant exhibits, testimony, warrant materials, video, and argument needed for the court to decide the issue.

• Obtain a ruling. A clear ruling defines what remains contested and what needs to be protected at trial.

• Object when necessary. If the evidence is offered in a manner or on a ground not resolved by the pretrial ruling, make a timely and specific objection.

• Keep the theory consistent. The issue litigated in the trial court should match the issue counsel expects to assert later, subject to the evidence that develops at trial.

A hearing request alone is not enough. The motion must state the constitutional, statutory, procedural, or evidentiary theory with enough particularity to permit a meaningful ruling.

A pretrial DUI motion checklist

Use this checklist as a case-screening tool, not as a filing mandate.

CategoryQuestions to answer before deciding on a motionInitial encounterWhat was the factual basis for the stop or contact? Is it supported by video and dispatch material?DetentionWhen did the encounter extend beyond its original purpose, and what facts allegedly justified that extension?ArrestWhat facts support probable cause, and do the reports and video align?Field-sobriety evidenceWere the conditions, instructions, and observed “clues” reliably documented and visible?StatementsWhat was asked, when, and under what custodial circumstances?Breath evidenceWhat records establish timing, administration, and evidentiary foundation?Blood evidenceWhat legal authority supported the draw, and what do the warrant, collection, lab, and chain-of-custody records show?Video and dataIs the production complete? Do timestamps match the written reports and test records?Discovery gapsWhat information is missing, and what targeted request or court order is needed?Motion planIs the issue one of suppression, exclusion, evidentiary foundation, cross-examination, expert review, or trial proof?

The practical objective

A disciplined pretrial-motion strategy does more than seek exclusion. It forces the State’s evidence into a clear timeline, exposes factual gaps, preserves issues, and helps counsel decide early what kind of case it is.

In some matters, the best outcome will come from suppression. In others, the motion work will clarify that the central defense is reliability, timing, causation, or credibility. Either way, the work should begin before the jury is seated and before an improvised objection leaves the trial court without a developed issue to decide.

Bottom line

Alabama DUI defense is not a checklist exercise. The strongest pretrial motion practice starts with the evidence, identifies the actual legal and factual pressure point, and makes a timely, specific record.

The lesson from McMillian is practical: do not wait until the State is introducing the evidence to discover that the motion has no developed theory. Build the record early, preserve the issue precisely, and use motion practice to shape the case—not merely to react to it.

This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It discusses Alabama criminal-defense practice and the preservation lesson in McMillian v. State. Counsel should evaluate the facts, discovery, statutes, procedural rules, and current authority applicable to each case.

A criminal case can turn on what happens before the jury hears the challenged evidence—and before the court accepts the agreed sentence.

In McMillian v. State, CR-2023-0898 (Ala. Crim. App. June 27, 2025), the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals addressed both points. The Court rejected a challenge to blood-draw evidence because the defense did not make a timely, specific suppression argument. But it also reversed an illegal sentence imposed under a plea agreement for a Class D controlled-substance-possession conviction and required the trial court to allow the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea after resentencing.

The result is a useful reminder for Alabama criminal-defense counsel: preservation and sentencing review are separate, essential parts of case preparation. A vague objection may not secure review of a suppression issue. And an agreed sentence is not safe merely because every party accepts it; the court cannot impose a sentence that does not conform to the applicable law.

Track one: a suppression challenge needs timing and specificity

In the DUI case, the State introduced evidence from blood draws taken after the defendant was arrested and officers obtained a search warrant. The defense did not file a written pretrial suppression motion. During trial, after an officer described events at the hospital, defense counsel asserted that the blood seizure was “unreasonable” and asked for a suppression hearing.

The trial court asked for the legal basis. Trial Counsel did not identify a more particular legal or factual ground, and the court denied the request. The defense also did not object when the related video, toxicology testimony, and toxicology report were later offered.

The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the issue was not preserved. It emphasized two familiar, practical paths to preservation:

1. File a specific pretrial motion to suppress and obtain a ruling; or

2. Make a timely and specific objection when the evidence is offered at trial.

A general assertion that evidence was “unreasonable” was not enough. The Court also noted that blood evidence obtained under a search warrant carries a presumption of validity; a defendant challenging the seizure must identify the legal and factual basis for doing so.

What defense counsel should do before trial

A suppression motion should make the court’s task concrete. Depending on the facts, counsel should identify the precise claimed defect—for example:

• lack of a valid warrant or a defect in the warrant process;

• insufficient probable cause;

• an unlawful stop, detention, arrest, or search;

• an overbroad warrant or execution beyond the warrant’s scope;

• a failure to comply with a legally required procedure; or

• a specific constitutional or statutory basis for exclusion.

The motion should tie the legal theory to the known facts, request the necessary hearing, and identify the evidence the defense seeks to suppress. If the State introduces the challenged evidence at trial and the pretrial record does not clearly resolve admissibility, counsel should make an appropriate contemporaneous objection and state the same ground with enough specificity to permit a ruling.

A hearing is not a substitute for a theory

McMillian does not mean that hearings on unlawfully obtained evidence are unimportant. Rule 104(c) provides that, in criminal cases, hearings on the admissibility of confessions or evidence alleged to have been obtained unlawfully are conducted outside the jury’s hearing and presence.

But the decision distinguishes a bona fide, sufficiently developed suppression issue from a conclusory request. In the Court’s view, the trial judge gave defense counsel an opportunity to elaborate outside the jury’s presence; the defense did not offer a legal or factual basis beyond an assertion of unreasonableness.

The practical point is simple: requesting a hearing does not eliminate the need to articulate the issue the hearing is supposed to decide.

Track two: an agreed sentence can still be illegal

The second case in McMillian involved a guilty plea to unlawful possession of a controlled substance, a Class D felony. The parties agreed to a five-year straight sentence. The sentence fell within the general statutory imprisonment range for the offense, but the Court held that it did not comply with the applicable presumptive sentencing standards and split-sentence requirements.

The sentencing worksheets showed a prison disposition and a recommended split-sentence range. The record did not show an asserted or found aggravating factor that would justify a departure. Under the governing framework for that sentencing event, the Court concluded that the straight five-year sentence was illegal.

The Court reversed the sentence and remanded for resentencing. Because the illegal sentence had been part of the plea agreement, the resentencing would amount to rejection of that agreement. The Court therefore held that the defendant must be allowed to withdraw the guilty plea if the defendant timely seeks withdrawal after resentencing. The defendant is not required to withdraw the plea.

The lesson is broader than one drug-possession case

The case is not a promise that every sentencing disagreement will invalidate a disposition. Its point is narrower and more important: counsel cannot stop the sentencing analysis at the statutory maximum or at the parties’ agreement.

For a covered offense, counsel should also determine whether the presumptive sentencing standards apply; review the proper worksheets and scoring; identify the recommended disposition and sentence-length range; assess any mandatory split-sentence or community-corrections requirement; and identify any proposed departure and the procedure supporting it.

An agreement between the prosecution and the defense does not authorize a court to impose an unlawful sentence.

A pre-plea and pre-sentencing audit

Before a client accepts a negotiated disposition, defense counsel should review the following:

Question

Why it matters

What is the exact offense of conviction and offense date?

The offense classification and governing sentencing law can depend on the charged offense and applicable version of the law.

Do the presumptive sentencing standards apply?

Covered offenses require more than a check of the general statutory sentencing range.

Are the correct worksheets complete and supported by the record?

Worksheet scoring affects the recommended disposition and sentence range.

What disposition does the worksheet recommend?

A prison, probation, drug-court, diversion, split-sentence, or community-corrections outcome may carry different legal requirements.

Does the proposed sentence comply with any applicable split-sentence statute?

A sentence can fall within the general statutory range yet still be illegal in its execution or disposition.

Is a departure proposed?

A departure requires attention to the applicable procedure and the factual basis for aggravating or mitigating factors.

Does the client understand the actual sentencing consequence?

The plea colloquy should accurately communicate the legally available punishment and disposition.

If the disposition changes, what happens to the plea agreement?

A corrected sentence may permit the client to seek withdrawal of a plea that was induced by an unlawful term.

The two-track criminal-defense checklist

Before the evidence comes in

• Identify all potential Fourth Amendment, statutory, and evidentiary suppression issues early.

• File a written, fact-specific motion when possible.

• Request the appropriate hearing and identify the evidence at issue.

• Obtain a clear ruling.

• If the issue arises at trial, object when the evidence is offered and state the particular ground.

• Preserve the relevant documents, video, warrant materials, reports, and hearing record.

Before the plea is accepted or sentence is imposed

• Confirm the offense class and statutory range.

• Determine whether the presumptive standards apply.

• Review the completed worksheets, scoring, and recommended outcome.

• Check any split-sentence, probation, community-corrections, or departure requirements.

• Compare the negotiated term to the legally authorized sentence and disposition.

• Explain to the client what will happen if the court cannot lawfully impose the negotiated sentence.

Bottom line

McMillian supplies a practical warning at two high-stakes points in a criminal case. First, a suppression issue must be raised timely and specifically; “unreasonable” is a conclusion, not a developed basis for exclusion. Second, a negotiated sentence must be legal, not merely agreeable.

The best defense practice is to build both reviews into the workflow: preserve the suppression record before the evidence reaches the jury, and audit the sentencing framework before the client enters a plea or the court announces sentence.

This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It discusses Alabama law and the particular procedural and sentencing posture in McMillian v. State. Counsel should verify the statutes, sentencing standards, worksheets, and procedural rules applicable to each individual case.

For Alabama criminal practitioners, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals’ July 17, 2026 docket is not a source of new merits doctrine. It is, however, a useful reminder that the decisive work in a memorandum-affirmance appeal often occurs before rehearing is denied.

The Court issued five criminal-case entries that day—Moore, B.T.H., Jenkins, Pride, and Osborne. In each, the Court overruled an application for rehearing. Each case had been affirmed by memorandum on June 18, 2026.

That combination matters. A memorandum affirmance may dispose of the client’s direct appeal without producing an opinion that can be cited in the next case. And once rehearing is denied, counsel’s immediate task is no longer to persuade the Court of Criminal Appeals; it is to decide promptly whether a discretionary certiorari petition is justified and whether the rehearing application has preserved an adequate factual platform for that petition.

The July 17 docket at a glance

Case

Trial court

June 18 disposition

July 17 action

Listed author of June disposition

Moore v. State, CR-2025-1010

Colbert Circuit Court, CC-24-118

Affirmed by memorandum

Rehearing overruled

Judge Kellum

B.T.H. v. State, CR-2025-0321

Houston Circuit Court, CC-23-509

Affirmed by memorandum

Rehearing overruled

Judge Anderson

Jenkins v. State, CR-2025-0705

Sumter Circuit Court, CC-17-72

Affirmed by memorandum

Rehearing overruled

Judge Kellum

Pride v. State, CR-2025-0847

Madison Circuit Court, CC-22-2093

Affirmed by memorandum

Rehearing overruled

Judge Anderson

Osborne v. State, CR-2025-0269

Mobile Circuit Court, CC-22-3881

Affirmed by memorandum

Rehearing overruled

Judge Cole

Since all of these cases’ requests for rehearing were overruled without a published opinion, the discussion below therefore addresses what the docket establishes and the appellate procedure it triggers—not the underlying merits of any individual conviction.

Why five memorandum affirmances and rehearing denials do not create a new body of authority

Alabama Rule of Appellate Procedure 54 permits the Court of Criminal Appeals to affirm without a published opinion when an opinion would serve no significant precedential purpose. The Court must prepare a memorandum addressing the appellant’s contentions and its reasons for rejecting them, but the text of such memoranda is not published in the official reports. Critically, a no-opinion affirmance or memorandum has no precedential value and may not be cited in arguments or briefs, except for specified preclusion-type uses: law of the case, res judicata, collateral estoppel, double jeopardy, or procedural bar. Ala. R. App. P. 54.

Accordingly, the five June affirmances cannot be mined as citable support for a general proposition about suppression, jury instructions, sentencing, sufficiency, or preservation. Nor does the July 17 denial of rehearing convert them into precedent. The value of this docket is procedural and strategic: it illustrates where counsel must build a record when a direct appeal is resolved by unpublished memorandum.

The real appellate lesson: rehearing is a preservation event

In a non-State-pretrial criminal appeal, rehearing in the Court of Criminal Appeals is a prerequisite to Alabama Supreme Court certiorari review. An unsuccessful party must file the rehearing application and supporting brief within 14 days of the decision; the application must identify with particularity the law or facts the party believes the appellate court overlooked or misapprehended. Ala. R. App. P. 40.

That rule makes rehearing more than a final request to the intermediate court. In a memorandum case, it is counsel’s opportunity to protect the factual presentation that will be available if the case goes to the Supreme Court.

The statement-of-facts requirement in a memorandum case

Rule 40(e) draws a critical distinction:

• If the court’s opinion or unpublished memorandum includes a statement of facts and counsel disputes it, the rehearing application may include a proposed additional or corrected statement of facts, or counsel’s own statement.

• If the opinion or unpublished memorandum does not contain a statement of facts, the rehearing applicant must include a statement of facts in the application.

That fact statement should be built as if it may be copied verbatim into a certiorari petition. It should be concise, record-specific, and organized around the certiorari-worthy question—not merely a chronology or a reargued statement from the appellant’s brief. Counsel should cross-check every material proposition to the clerk’s record or reporter’s transcript and should include the facts that make the asserted conflict, constitutional question, first-impression issue, or other Rule 39 ground intelligible.

The reason is mechanical as well as strategic. If the Court of Criminal Appeals does not incorporate the requested fact statement in a subsequent opinion or memorandum, Rule 39 requires the certiorari petitioner to reproduce the statement presented on rehearing verbatim, with record references, and verify that it is the same statement. The Alabama Supreme Court ordinarily limits its review to the facts stated in the intermediate court’s opinion, unless the petitioner uses this Rule 39(d)(5) procedure. Ala. R. App. P. 39.

What to test before seeking rehearing

A strong rehearing analysis should not simply refile the merits brief. Before filing, appellate counsel should ask:

1. What proposition did the memorandum actually reject? Identify the precise legal step that controls the result—preservation, standard of review, statutory construction, harmless error, sufficiency, sentencing authority, or a constitutional claim.

2. What did the Court overlook or misapprehend? Rule 40 requires particularity. Pinpoint a record fact, authority, procedural posture, or logical consequence that the memorandum did not address correctly.

3. Is the factual statement sufficient for a later certiorari petition? If not, cure it in the rehearing application. Do not assume the Supreme Court will examine the record before deciding whether to issue the writ.

4. Can the issue be framed under Rule 39(a)? In a non-death-penalty case, discretionary certiorari grounds include a material first-impression question for the Supreme Court, conflict with specified prior appellate authority, certain constitutional or statutory rulings, effects on a class of public officers, or a request to overrule controlling Alabama Supreme Court precedent.

5. Is the remedy and client objective clear? The value of a certiorari petition may differ substantially depending on whether the issue affects retrial exposure, a mandatory sentence, jail-credit calculation, probation consequences, a collateral proceeding, or a recurring legal question.

What July 17 changes—and what it does not

The five July 17 orders overruled rehearing. They did not modify the June 18 memorandum affirmances, reveal additional reasoning, or generate citable precedent. For each appellant, however, the rehearing ruling begins the next appellate window.

Under Rule 39(c), a petition for writ of certiorari from a Court of Criminal Appeals decision must be filed within 14 days of the decision on the rehearing application. Certiorari is discretionary, not a second appeal as of right. The petition must state a recognized Rule 39 ground, give a direct and concise supporting argument, and attach both the Court of Criminal Appeals’ opinion or unpublished memorandum and the rehearing order or notice. Ala. R. App. P. 39.

The rule expressly accounts for a conflict claim where the lower court issued no opinion or no language that can be quoted: counsel must state that the conflict provision applies and explain with particularity how the decision conflicts with prior authority. That is important in a memorandum-affirmance case, but it is not a relaxed standard. The petition must still make the conflict—or another Rule 39 ground—clear from the materials the Supreme Court has before it on preliminary review.

Calendar and finality: do not treat the rehearing denial as the end of the case

Rule 41 provides that, absent an order changing the time, the Court of Criminal Appeals’ certificate of judgment issues 18 days after entry of an order denying rehearing. A timely certiorari petition stays issuance of that certificate until the Supreme Court finally disposes of the petition. Ala. R. App. P. 41.

For lawyers handling a July 17 rehearing denial, the core calendaring tasks are therefore:

• calculate the Rule 39 certiorari deadline from the July 17 order;

• determine promptly whether retained or appointed representation includes Supreme Court review and communicate that scope to the client;

• obtain and preserve the Court of Criminal Appeals memorandum, rehearing application, supporting brief, and rehearing order;

• verify whether the rehearing application contains the fact statement required by Rule 40(e) and the record citations needed by Rule 39(d)(5); and

• separately evaluate any postconviction, sentence-administration, or collateral consequences deadlines that may be affected by finality.

The last point is especially important. Direct-appeal finality can interact with later litigation choices, but the July 17 entries do not themselves resolve those downstream questions. Counsel should analyze them from the record, judgment, sentence, and applicable procedural rules in the particular case.

Case-by-case docket notes

Moore v. State — Colbert Circuit Court

Moore v. State, CR-2025-1010, arose from Colbert Circuit Court case CC-24-118. Judge Kellum’s June 18 entry reflects an affirmance by memorandum; the July 17 order overruled rehearing. The public docket materials do not identify the appellate claims. The immediate appellate question is whether the rehearing papers preserved a statement of facts and a Rule 39 ground adequate for discretionary Supreme Court review.

B.T.H. v. State — Houston Circuit Court

B.T.H. v. State, CR-2025-0321, arose from Houston Circuit Court case CC-23-509. Judge Anderson’s June 18 memorandum affirmance remained unchanged when rehearing was overruled on July 17. The public entries provide no basis to characterize the underlying offense, evidence, or legal issue. Lawyers reviewing the file should focus on the unpublished memorandum, the rehearing application, and the contemporaneous record citations before deciding whether the case presents a certiorari-worthy conflict or other Rule 39 ground.

Jenkins v. State — Sumter Circuit Court

Jenkins v. State, CR-2025-0705, came from Sumter Circuit Court case CC-17-72. Judge Kellum’s June 18 memorandum affirmance was followed by a July 17 rehearing denial. The older trial-court case number should not be used to infer the nature of the appeal or the sentence; the available appellate entries do not provide that information. The relevant practitioner task is to determine whether the unpublished memorandum’s reasoning conflicts with published authority or rests on an issue suitable for Supreme Court review.

Pride v. State — Madison Circuit Court

Pride v. State, CR-2025-0847, arose from Madison Circuit Court case CC-22-2093. Judge Anderson’s June 18 memorandum affirmance remained in force after the July 17 rehearing denial. As with the other entries, the orders are not authority on any substantive criminal-law question. The appellate file—not the case caption or short docket entry—must drive counsel’s assessment of remaining review and client advice.

Osborne v. State — Mobile Circuit Court

Osborne v. State, CR-2025-0269, arose from Mobile Circuit Court case CC-22-3881. Judge Cole’s June 18 entry reflects an affirmance by memorandum, and the Court denied rehearing on July 17. For any possible certiorari petition, counsel should confirm that the rehearing application did more than reassert trial-level errors: it needed to identify the specific overlooked point and, where needed, supply the factual statement required to support Supreme Court review.

Bottom line for Alabama criminal practitioners

This was a finality docket, not a new-doctrine docket. The Court of Criminal Appeals resolved five rehearing applications in cases it had already affirmed by memorandum. Because Rule 54 makes those memorandum dispositions nonprecedential and noncitable (subject to narrow exceptions), there is no new substantive rule to import into a brief or motion.

The docket’s practical lesson is more durable: when a criminal appeal is decided by unpublished memorandum, rehearing is the moment to create a disciplined appellate record for discretionary certiorari. Counsel should frame the overlooked legal or factual point with precision, include the required fact statement when the memorandum does not state facts, preserve record citations, and make an early, candid Rule 39 assessment. Once rehearing is denied, the 14-day certiorari period and the certificate-of-judgment clock leave little room to reconstruct an incomplete application.

This article is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. It addresses the five Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals entries issued July 17, 2026, and the applicable Alabama appellate rules; it does not purport to summarize the undisclosed issues or reasoning in the underlying criminal appeals.