Lowery Dale Wilson v. State of Alabama

Rel: December 19, 2025

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026
_________________________

CR-2025-0107
_________________________

Lowery Dale Wilson

v.

State of Alabama

Appeal from Lauderdale Circuit Court
(CC-23-1239.70)

On Application for Rehearing

KELLUM, Judge.

This Court's opinion issued on September 26, 2025, is withdrawn,

and the following is substituted therefor.

Lowery Dale Wilson appeals from the Lauderdale Circuit Court's

order granting the State's motion to impose sentence and revoking his
CR-2025-0107

participation in the Lauderdale County Community Corrections

("LCCC") program.

The limited record before us on appeal indicates that Wilson

pleaded guilty to discharging a gun into an occupied building and was

sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment, "split to time served," with the

remainder of the sentence suspended for 60 months; Wilson was placed

in the LCCC program for 24 months. (C. 6.) On August 27, 2024, Wilson

reported to the LCCC program for an evaluation, at which time Wilson

was asked to read and sign "the LCCC Rules, Requirements and

Information form." (C. 8.) After learning that he would be placed on the

"color code program," 1 Wilson refused to sign the LCCC form

acknowledging the rules and regulations and admitted that there were

drugs in his system. (C. 8.) The LCCC program evaluation was then

terminated.

On August 27, 2024, the State filed a motion to impose sentence in

the circuit court, alleging that Wilson had refused to sign the necessary

LCCC paperwork and to submit to the color-code program, thus resulting

1"Color code program" refers to a drug-testing program in which

participants are assigned a specific color and are required to undergo a
drug test when their assigned color is called.
2
CR-2025-0107

in the termination of Wilson's LCCC program evaluation. On September

17, 2024, the State filed a motion to amend its motion to impose sentence,

in which the State alleged that Wilson had been arrested and charged

with possessing a firearm while being within the class of certain persons

forbidden to possess a firearm. The circuit court granted the motion to

amend.

On October 29, 2024, after holding a hearing on the State's

amended motion to impose sentence, the circuit court entered an order

stating that "sentencing is set December 5, 2024, @ 1:30 p.m." On

November 22, 2024, Wilson filed a motion to reconsider, in which he

referenced testimony taken at the October 29, 2024, hearing. In his

motion to reconsider, Wilson stated that the circuit court had found that

the State had "met [its] burden" at the conclusion of the hearing but had

given Wilson an opportunity to respond by brief or motion to address any

issues raised during the hearing. (C. 17.) On December 7, 2024, the

circuit court held a hearing on the motion to reconsider. On December

10, 2024, the circuit court entered an order ("the revocation order"), in

which it granted the State's motion to impose sentence, denied the motion

to reconsider, revoked Wilson's participation in the LCCC program, and

3
CR-2025-0107

ordered Wilson to serve the balance of his sentence in the custody of the

Alabama Department of Corrections. Wilson filed a timely notice of

appeal.

On appeal, Wilson contends, among other things, that this case is

due to be remanded based on the circuit court's failure to enter a

revocation order that complies with Rule 27.6(f), Ala. R. Crim. P. We

agree.

"We first note that the revocation of a sentence served
under a community-corrections program is treated the same
as a probation revocation. See § 15-18-175(d)(3)b., Ala. Code
1975 ('A revocation hearing shall be conducted before the
court prior to revocation of the community corrections
sentence. The court shall apply the same due process
safeguards as a probation revocation proceeding and may
modify or revoke the community punishment sentence and
impose the sentence that was suspended at the original
hearing or any lesser sentence....'); Richardson v. State, 911
So. 2d 1114 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004) (treating the revocation of
a community-corrections sentence as a probation revocation)."

Corbitt v. State, 369 So. 3d 682, 684 (Ala. Crim. App. 2022).

Rule 27.6(f) provides that, when revoking probation, "[t]he judge

shall make a written statement or state for the record the evidence relied

upon and the reasons for revoking probation." In McCoo v. State, 921 So.

2d 450, 462-63 (Ala. 2005), the Alabama Supreme Court held:

4
CR-2025-0107

"It follows that the requirement of Wyatt [v. State, 608
So. 2d 762 (Ala. 1992),] and its associated cases -- that the
trial court enter a written order stating its reasons for the
revocation and the evidence relied upon regardless of the state
of the record -- is no longer applicable. Henceforth, the Court
of Criminal Appeals may determine, upon a review of the
record, whether the requisite Rule 27.6(f)[, Ala. R. Crim. P.,]
statements are presented by that record. Thus, the Court of
Criminal Appeals may examine the record and conclude that
'oral findings, if recorded or transcribed, can satisfy the
requirements of Morrissey [v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 when
those findings create a record sufficiently complete to advise
the parties and the reviewing court of the reasons for the
revocation of supervised release and the evidence the decision
maker relied upon.' [United States v.] Copeland, 20 F.3d
[412,] 414 [(11th Cir. 1994)].

"We hasten to note that our holding in this case does not
diminish the duty of the trial court to take some affirmative
action, either by a statement recorded in the transcript or by
written order, to state its reasons for revoking probation, with
appropriate reference to the evidence supporting those
reasons. The requirements of Wyatt will still be fully
applicable in those situations where the record, for lack of
transcription of the revocation hearing or for some other
reason, fails to clearly and unambiguously set forth the
reasons for the revocation and the evidence that supported
those reasons. Thus, the requirements of Wyatt are fully
applicable to the trial court's order of revocation where the
record fails to comply with Rule 27.6(f)."

In this case, the circuit court did not provide the reasons for

revoking Wilson's participation in the LCCC program and the evidence

the court relied on to revoke. At the conclusion of the revocation hearing,

the circuit court did not state its reasons for revoking Wilson's

5
CR-2025-0107

participation in the LCCC program or reference the evidence supporting

those reasons. Further, the revocation order entered by the circuit court

merely states that the motion to impose sentence filed by the State is

granted and makes no reference to the basis for the decision to grant the

State's motion. As noted by our Supreme Court in McCoo, supra, some

affirmative action on the part of the circuit court is required when

making a revocation decision.

Accordingly, this case is hereby remanded to the Lauderdale Circuit

Court for that court to enter a new order stating its reasons for revoking

Wilson's participation in the LCCC program and the specific evidence

relied upon in revoking his participation in that program. The circuit

court shall take all necessary action to see that the circuit clerk makes

due return to this Court at the earliest possible time and within 56 days

of the release of this opinion.

APPLICATION GRANTED; OPINION OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2025,

WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; REMANDED WITH

INSTRUCTIONS.

Windom, P.J., and Cole, Minor, and Anderson, JJ., concur.

6