to an alleged violation of a due-process right. In conclusion, it is appropriate to note that in reversing the order of the Court of Criminal Appeals we are simply, albeit belatedly, responding to its several well-reasoned opinions requesting that we revisit Wyatt and adopt an approach more consonant with Rule 27.6(f) and the principles of Gagnon and Morrissey. Thus, in essence, we are reversing a judgment of this Court, not the Court of Criminal Appeals. REVERSED AND REMANDED. NABERS, C.J., and STUART, BOLIN, and PARKER, JJ., concur. SEE and LYONS, JJ., concur in part and concur in the result. SMITH, J., concurs in the result. WOODALL, J., dissents. 1 . See § 15-18-8, Ala.Code 1975, the Alabama Split Sentence Act. 2 . See also Ex parte Save Our Streams, Inc., 541 So.2d 549 (Ala.1989)(<HOLDING>) (Rule 39 has since been amended to eliminate
holding that this court will consider a petition for a writ of certiorari only after the court of appeals has overruled the application for rehearing on the point challenged in the petition implying that the decision by the court of criminal appeals must be final before certiorari review would be available holding that supreme court need not consider issue not raised in petition for certiorari holding it is settled that the supreme court may consider questions raised on the first appeal after which the court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari as well as those that were before the court of appeals upon the second appeal after which the court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari internal quotation marks omitted recognizing the right to petition for writ of certiorari as a form of appellate review holding that supreme court would not consider issue not mentioned either in petition for rehearing or in petition for certiorari even though matter was argued before it