§

Oden v. State

890 So. 2d 1104 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)
Oden v. State

1 Citing case

  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 intervening factual circumstance, most often that the issue will be resolved by the passage of a relatively brief period of time.