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.