I was once obliged to deep-dive Alabama’s insane misdemeanor trial system, the explanation of which requires some 2,000 words. I choose to make the research available as a public service so that idiot legislators and lazy attorneys get the facts right. It is structed in the style of head notes for attorney readers. It is not legal advice. These cites were compiled in 2020, refreshed in 2022, reformatted in 2024, and reconfirmed in 2025. Further updates are not guaranteed. 
NOTE: as of 12/13/2024, this précis is still being edited, though roughly 95% complete.
All state-code misdemeanors are indictable offenses in Alabama entitled to all due process propounded in Art I §6 of Alabama’s 1901 Constitution. Ala. §15-8-2; Ex Parte City of Dothan, 501 So. 2d 1136, 1142 (Ala S Ct 1986); Alford v. State, 58 So. 213, 223 (Ala S Ct 1910); Davis v. State, 141 Ala 84, 89 (Ala S Ct 1904)
Except when indicted or collateral to a felony (Ala. §12-11-30), district and municipal courts have exclusive original jurisdiction of all misdemeanors. Ala. §12-12-32; Ala. §12-14-1; Ala R Cr P 2.2(b)
Procedure and evidence are known to be less rigorously followed in municipal and district courts.
District courts and municipal courts are empowered to impose incarcerations up to one year. Ala. §13A-5-3; Ala. §13A-5-7; Ala. §11-45-9
District and municipal courts are prohibited from granting change of venue (Ala R Cr P 10.1), from receiving certain irresponsibility pleas (Ala R Cr P 11.9), and from conducting jury trials (Ala R Cr P 18; Ala. §12-12-3; Ala. §12-14-6).
“the[se] constitutional rights are temporarily held in abeyance.” Ex Parte Hilburn, 591 So. 2d 8, 12 (Ala S Ct 1991)
These rights are only enforceable after district or municipal conviction and timely demand to circuit court for trial de novo. Ex Parte Sorsby, 12 So. 3d 139, 141 (Ala S Ct 2007)
Removal to circuit court for trial de novo comes as of right. Ala. §12-12-70; Ala. §12-14-70; Ala R Cr P 30; Ala. Const. Art I §6 (1901); Ala. Const. Amend. 328 §6.11
This two-tier system does not violate double jeopardy (as long trial de novo tier is conducted agnostically). See Ludwig v. Massachusetts, 427 US 618 (1976). See further Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), and Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978).
“[T]he accused may enjoy his right to trial by jury expeditiously by invoking the above-described procedure of ‘admitting sufficient findings of fact.’ He, therefore, need not pursue, in any real sense, a defense at the lower tier. The accused, however, may utilize that proceeding fruitfully as a discovery tool and find the strengths and the weaknesses of the State’s case against him. utilize that proceeding fruitfully as a discovery tool and find the strengths and the weaknesses of the State’s case.” Ludwig v. Massachusetts, 427 US 618, 626-27 (1976).
“The Constitutions of the United States and Alabama provide for the right to trial by jury in most criminal cases.” Ex Parte Hilburn, 591 So. 2d 8, 11 (Ala S Ct 1991)
“in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a right to [. . .] public trial, by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense was committed.” Ala. Const. Art I §6 (1901)
“the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.” Ala. Const. Art I §11 (1901)
“To provide that the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate is to forbid the state through the legislative, judicial, or executive department—one or all—from ever burdening, disturbing, qualifying, or tampering with this right to the prejudice of the people.” Gilbreath v. Wallace, 292 So. 2d 651, 655 (Ala S Ct 1974) Quoting, reviving, and applying civilly Alford v. State, 54 So. 213, 223 (Ala S Ct 1910). Re-cited myriad times since, viz Ex Parte Spruill, 127 So. 3d 443, 444 (Ala Crim App 2013 [per curiam dissent]), and Health Care Auth v. Davis, 158 So. 3d 397 (Ala S Ct 2013).
“[T]he Fourteenth Amendment denies the States the power to ‘deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law’.” Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 135, 147 (1968)
“[T]he Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a right of jury trial in all criminal cases which—were they tried in federal court—would come within the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee.” Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 135, 149 (1968)
“Crimes carrying possible penalties up to six months do not require a jury trial if they otherwise qualify as petty offenses.” Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 135, 159 (1968)
“[N]o offense can be deemed ‘petty’ for purposes of the right to trial by jury where imprisonment for more than six months is authorized.” Baldwin v. New York, 399 US 66, 69 (1970) [rpt at 74]
The jury right “embraces as well some classes of misdemeanors, the punishment of which involves or may involve the deprivation of the liberty of the citizen.” Baldwin v. New York, 399 US 66, 70 (1968)
District and Municipal Courts
“[M]unicipal courts are not courts of record.” Ex Parte Maye, 799 So. 2d 944, 947 (Ala S Ct 2001); Ex Parte Burnsed, 844 So. 2d 526, 528 (Ala S Ct 2001); Parker v. City of Tuscaloosa, 698 So. 2d 1171, 1173 (Ala Crim App 1997); Ex Parte Town of Gulf Shores, 412 So. 2d 1259, 1262 (Ala Crim App 1982)
Municipal courts are not required to employ court reporters and have no duty to provide one even when requested. Parker v. City of Tuscaloosa, 698 So. 2d 1171 (Ala Crim App 1997). A municipal court defendant who desires memorialization must (and often wrongly subjected to leave) hire a court reporter at personal expense. Ex Parte Maye, 799 So. 2d 944 (Ala S Ct 2001).
So no pauperis defendant will ever have a misdemeanor transcript of the first-instance, and that offends Griffin v. Illinois wherein (Alabama native) Justice Hugo Black wrote, “There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has.” So a wealthy defendant may obtain a transcript of hhe first instance while a pauperis defendant cannot. Government witnesses are thereby free to revise their testimony to defeat any defense presented by the pauperis defendant in the first instance, but held to strict adherence to their initial testimony against wealthy defendants.
Municipal courts may not assert Ala R Cr P 7.2(d) neither to impose bond conditions nor to deny release pending trial de novo in circuit court. Ala Atty-Gen Op 2005-195; Ex Parte Gilham, 684 So. 2d 164 (Ala Crim App 1995)
Some municipalities do not create municipal courts and prosecute offenses in district court.
District courts are courts of limited record when exercising concurrent jurisdiction to receive felony pleas. Ala. §12-12-32(b); Ala R Cr P 2.2(a). District courts will employ court reporters when acting in that capacity, but have no such obligation for misdemeanor proceedings.
District courts may assert Ala R Cr P 7.2(d) as to bond conditions on removal to circuit court for trial de novo. Ala Atty-Gen Op 2005-195; Ex Parte Gilham, 684 So. 2d 164 (Ala Crim App 1995)
It would seem presumptive impossible for any misdemeanor to reach the criteria to deny release pending “appeal” to circuit court.
Judgments and sentencing must be pronounced in open court and may not be decided under advisement. Glaze v. City of Alabaster, 211 So. 3d 859 (Ala Crim App 2016)
In order to enforce provision of full due-process, a misdemeanor defendant must be “found guilty following a bench trial, stipulate to the facts as alleged by the State [or City] in order to be found guilty, or plead guilty.” Ex Parte Sorsby, 12 So. 3d 139, 141 (Ala S Ct 2007)
The misdemeanor defendant has fourteen days to demand provision of withheld due process through “appeal” to circuit court for trial de novo. Ala. §12-11-30(3); Ala. §12-11-30(4); Ala. §12-12-70; Ala. §12-12-71, Ala. §12-14-70; Ala R Cr P 30.1; Ala R Crim P 30.3
If the municipal or district court imposed a term of confinement, the defendant must post a new bond to remain at liberty, No issues must enumerated or reserved.
The defendant never has opportunity neither to receive, nor to consent, nor to waive his due process protections.
Removal to Circuit Court
Procedure is governed by Ala. 12-12-70, Ala. 12-12-71, Ala. 12-14-70, and Ala R Cr P 30. Rule-making authority is conferred upon the Ala S Ct by Ala. Const. (1901) Amend. 328 §6.11 (1986). Generally, procedure under rule has precedence over procedure under statute because rule-making authority is constitutional. But, “rules and statutes relating to the same subject matter must be read in pari materia, thus allowing for legal harmony where possible.” Ex Parte State ex rel Daw v. Daw, 786 So. 2d 1134, 1136 (Ala S Ct 2000) [adopted and applied criminally in Ex Parte City of Tarrant, 850 So. 2d 366 (Ala Crim App 2002)]. Overlap should be evaluated for directory or mandatory effect. Ex Parte Hood, 404 So. 2d 718 (Ala S Ct.1981)
From municipal court. “A defendant may appeal in any case within 14 days from the entry of judgment by filing notice of appeal and giving bond, with or without surety, approved by the court or the clerk in an amount not more than twice the amount of the fine and costs, as fixed by the court, or in the event no fine is levied the bond shall be in an amount not to exceed $1,000.00, as fixed by the court, conditioned upon the defendant’s appearance before the circuit court. The municipal court may waive appearance bond upon satisfactory showing that the defendant is indigent or otherwise unable to provide a surety bond. If an appeal bond is waived, a defendant sentenced to imprisonment shall not be released from custody, but may obtain release at any time by filing a bond approved by the municipal court. If defendant is not released, the prosecutor shall notify the circuit clerk, and the case shall be set for trial at the earliest practicable time..” Ala. §12-14-70(c)
“When an appeal has been taken, the municipality shall file the notice and other documents in the court to which the appeal is taken within 15 days, failing which the municipality shall be deemed to have abandoned the prosecution, the defendant shall stand discharged and the bond shall be automatically terminated.” Ala. §12-14-70(d)
Ala R Jud Adm 4(II) assigns the responsibility of compiling, certifying, and transmitting a municipal court record solely and exclusively to the clerk of municipal court. “The clerk shall be the custodian of court records and shall keep such records of the court as are required by ordinance or other law, the municipal governing body, the judge, Supreme Court rule, or the ADC.” […] “The clerk shall prepare documents for filing in the circuit court in cases appealed to the circuit court, in accordance with statutes and the rules of the Supreme Court of Alabama, and shall maintain a log of all appealed cases.”
Magistrates may not perform the duties reserved to clerks of municipal court. Ala R Jud Adm 18(B)(2) and Ala. §12-14-51(c) are identical in that “the powers of a magistrate shall be limited” to enumerated duties which do not encompas custodianship and certification of municipal court records. Ala R Cr P 30.4(a) and Ala R Jud Adm 4(II).
A municipal court that fails to timely transmit its record to the circuit court is subject to dismissal of the prosecution and discharge of the defendant with prejudice. Ex Parte State, 636 So. 2d 1282 (Ala Crim App 1994)
From district court. “A defendant may appeal from a final judgment of the district court in a criminal or quasi-criminal case by filing notice of appeal within 14 days from the date of judgment or from the date of denial of a post-trial motion, whichever is later, together with such bond as may be fixed by the court, conditioned upon the defendant’s appearance before the circuit court; provided, however, that the court may authorize the defendant’s release on his own recognizance without any undertaking relating to or deposit of security.” Ala. §12-12-70(b)
“The clerk of the district court, if separate from the clerk of the circuit court, shall forthwith file the notice of appeal, a cost bill and copies of the case file with the clerk of the circuit court.” Ala. §12-12-70(d)
Clerks of circuit court are ex officio clerks of district court (Ala. §12-17-160) which nullifies the duty to prepare and transmit the district court record to circuit court for the de novo proceedings.
“An appellant shall not be entitled to a jury trial in circuit court unless it is demanded in the notice of appeal, and an appellee shall have no right to a jury trial unless written demand is filed in circuit court within 14 days of service upon him of notice of appeal.” Ala. §12-12-71
From both municipal and district court. “Within fourteen (14) days after the appeal to the circuit court for trial de novo is perfected as provided by Rule 30.3(b), the clerk of the municipal or district court shall transmit to the clerk of the circuit court such records of the proceedings as are in the municipal or district court clerk’s possession, including the original charging instrument. If the appeal is from a municipal court and the clerk thereof shall fail to transmit such records to the clerk of the circuit court within the time prescribed, the municipality shall be deemed to have abandoned the prosecution; the defendant shall stand discharged, with prejudice, and any bond shall be automatically terminated.” Ala R Cr P 30.4(a)
“Arraignment is required on appeal de novo to circuit court.” Ala R Cr P 14.1(c)
“a defendant may waive the right to be present at any proceeding in the following manner: With the consent of the court, by an understanding and voluntary waiver in open court or by a written consent executed by the defendant and by the defendant’s attorney of record, filed in the case.” Ala R Cr P 9.1(b)(1)
De novo sentencing. “The [circuit] court may impose any penalty or sentence which the municipal court could have imposed.” Ala. §12-14-70(e); Ala Atty-Gen Op. 1990-155)
State law fixes sentencing maxima which municipalities can impose for misdemeanor offenses.
Theoretically a municipal court could sentence Class C misdemeanors as Class B misdemeanors.
State law fixes different maxima for municipal violations.
If a municipality enacts its own sentencing schedule by ordinance, “a municipal court shall take judicial notice of the ordinances of the municipality in which it sits.” Ala. §12-14-7
It would appear that the de novo court must also take judicial notice of the municipal ordinances and sentencing would be equally limited.
A misdemeanor defendant who fails to appear is subject to dismissal of the de novo proceeding and the municipal or district sentence stands.
Abatement. An a priori disposition in municipal or district court abates from inception upon death or incapacity of the defendant pending trial de novo. Ex Parte Estate of Cook, 848 So. 2d 916 (Ala S Ct 2002); Glasscox v. City of Argo (N.D. Ala 2020)
See Saint Louis University Law Journal – Visibility and Accountability: Shining a Light on Proceedings in Misdemeanor Two-Tier Court Systems