The court affirmed. Juvenile-probation revocation determines whether the young person violated conditions of an existing disposition; it is not a prosecution imposing punishment for a new offense. Like adult probation revocation, it therefore does not place the probationer in jeopardy for the alleged conduct and does not prevent a later delinquency adjudication based on that conduct.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction. Its lengthy opinion rejected Brown’s asserted errors after reviewing the circumstances of the operation, the shooting, the proof of Brown’s knowledge and intent, and the trial court’s challenged rulings. The court concluded that none of the preserved issues required reversal and found no plain error adversely affecting Brown’s substantial rights.
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed. Although some nonhearsay evidence connected Hatfield to the vehicle or scene, none connected him to the criminal conduct itself. The crucial identification link depended on hearsay. Alabama’s revocation standard is less demanding than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but a finding still cannot rest solely on hearsay evidence.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the capital-murder and first-degree-assault convictions and their sentences. It concluded, however, that the conviction for discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle violated double-jeopardy principles because the proven act underlying that offense was also used to establish the charged form of capital murder.
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed. The deputy’s account relayed statements made by other people and did not provide nonhearsay proof that Wallace committed domestic violence. Evidence establishing surrounding circumstances or explaining the investigation was not enough unless some admissible evidence connected Wallace to the alleged violation itself.
The Supreme Court dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Finality depends on whether the trial court has ended the proceedings and resolved the issues before it, not merely on whether an earlier judgment was final. The order on the amended Rule 60 motion left substantive property-transfer questions pending and therefore did not put an end to the controversy.
The Alabama Supreme Court reversed. Rule 65(a)(2) allows consolidation of a preliminary-injunction hearing with a merits trial, but the parties must receive clear and timely notice so they can marshal evidence and prepare to litigate final relief. A court cannot apply a provisional-relief standard and then impose an irreversible permanent remedy without that procedural protection.
The Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. A default judgment establishing liability but reserving damages ordinarily remains interlocutory because it does not end the litigation or fully adjudicate the parties’ rights. The continuing need to determine monetary relief was not a ministerial detail; it was part of the merits still pending before the trial court.
The Supreme Court granted the petition and directed dismissal. It concluded that the plaintiffs had not alleged a present, justiciable dispute supporting the requested relief against the county defendants. Courts decide concrete controversies affecting existing legal rights; they do not issue advisory declarations or adjudicate claims that would not settle an actual legal relationship between the parties.
The Alabama Supreme Court reversed. It held that the circuit court’s statutory power of general supervision over inferior courts extends to the probate court and includes authority to issue writs needed to exercise that supervision. A local grant of concurrent equity jurisdiction changes the matters a probate court may decide, but it does not transform the probate court into a tribunal equal in institutional rank to the circuit court.
The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal because Banks did not develop a cogent appellate argument showing reversible error. The Court emphasized that an appellant must identify the challenged ruling, explain why it is wrong, and support the position with relevant authority. General disagreement and undeveloped assertions do not preserve an issue for merits review, even when the appellant is self-represented.
The Alabama Supreme Court held that Rule 26 permits limited discovery sharing, but ordered four safeguards for confidential material used in related State Farm roof-claim cases.