July 17, 2026: What Alabama Criminal Appellate Lawyers Should Take from a Docket of Rehearing Denials
Breaking down this week's denials.
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
Colbert Circuit Court, CC-24-118
Affirmed by memorandum
Rehearing overruled
Judge Kellum
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.