Kinchlow v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. McCoo v. State

    921 So. 2d 450 (Ala. 2005)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that the adequacy of a revocation order hinges on whether the order or the circuit court’s oral findings "unambiguously set forth the reasons for the revocation and the evidence that supported those reasons"

    Griggs v. Bennett, 710 So.2d 411, 412 n. 4 (Ala. 1998); Ex parte Birmingham News Co., 624 So.2d 1117 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993); and State ex rel. Kernells v. Ezell, 291 Ala. 440, 282 So.2d 266, 270 (1973). Richardson v. State, 911 So.2d 1114 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004); K.W.J. v. State, 905 So.2d 17 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004); McGhee v. State, 912 So.2d 534 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004); Boles v. State, [Ms. CR-03-0474, June 25, 2004] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.Crim.App. 2004); McCoo, supra; Williams v. State, 895 So.2d 1012 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004); Salter v. State, 895 So.2d 394 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004); Taylor v. State, 894 So.2d 806 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004); Stinson v. State, 901 So.2d 748 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004); Kinchlow v. State, 891 So.2d 436 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004); Williams v. State, 891 So.2d 1001 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004); Bauer v. State, 891 So.2d 1004 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004); Cherry v. State, 890 So.2d 1106 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004); Oden v. State, 890 So.2d 1104 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004); Rander v. State, 882 So.2d 369 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003); Beard v. State, 871 So.2d 866 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003); Beckham v. State, 872 So.2d 208 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003); Smith v. State, 872 So.2d 216 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003); Pate v. State, 882 So.2d 372 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003); Davis v. State, 861 So.2d 23, (Ala.Crim.App. 2003); Cain v. State, 861 So.2d 424 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003); Murphy v. State, 856 So.2d 949 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003); McNealy v. State, 855 So.2d 592 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003); Smith v. State, 857 So.2d 838 (Ala.Crim.App. 2002); and Attaway v. State, 854 So.2d 1211 (Ala.Crim.App. 2002). The capable-of-repetition-but-evading-review exception has been applied in contexts that generally involve a significant issue that cannot be addressed by a reviewing court because of some intervenin

  2. McGhee v. State

    912 So. 2d 534 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    (R. 3) Thus, the order was insufficient to comply with the requirements of Rule 27.6(f), Ala. R.Crim. P., and Armstrong v. State. Although the transcript of the revocation hearing clearly establishes that the State presented sufficient evidence from which the court could be reasonably satisfied that McGhee had violated the conditions of his probation and remand is not in the interest of judicial economy, we nevertheless have no choice but to remand this case for a new revocation order, given the Supreme Court's holdings in Armstrong v. State, supra, and Wyatt v. State, supra. See also Attaway v. State, 854 So.2d 1211 (Ala.Crim.App. 2002); and Kinchlow v. State, 891 So.2d 436 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004). Based on the foregoing, we remand this cause for the circuit court to enter a new order reflecting the specific evidence relied upon, as well as the reason or reasons it had for revoking McGhee's probation.