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). Accordingly, we reverse the order remanding this case to the trial court and we remand the cause to the Court of Criminal Appeals for it to examine the record and determine whether the requirements of Rule 27.6(f) and constitutional due process have been met. Because of this disposition, we decline to address whether the harmless-error rule should ap requirement that an application for rehearing be filed for petitions seeking a review of a decision of the Court of Civil Appeals), and Ex parte Blakey, 240 Ala. 517, 199 So. 857 (1941)(<HOLDING>). [3] 3. Rule 39(c), Ala. R.App. P., was
holding that a reviewable final order is necessary for subjectmatter jurisdiction holding that the trial courts order that the petitioner answer questions propounded to him at a commission hearing was a final judgment reviewable by the supreme court by commonlaw certiorari holding that a state court criminal judgment is final for purposes of collateral attack in federal court at the conclusion of review in the united states supreme court or when the time for seeking certiorari review expires recognizing that where a state prisoner declines to pursue certiorari in the united states supreme court that petitioners conviction is not final  until  after the time for filing a petition for certiorari with the supreme court has passed holding the order is only reviewable if actually considered by the district court