context: P.), the court held that, although a motion to amend the sentence did not come within the precise language of Temp. Rule 13, it was within the coverage of that rule. In affirming this holding, our supreme court noted that "the provisions of subsection (d) [now Rule 24.4] regarding denial of such a motion by operation of law would also apply." 475 So.2d at 600 n. 1. However, other caselaw appears to support a different conclusion.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: a motion to reconsider the sentence does not fall within that category of motions that tolls the time for appeal
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., Martinez v. State, 602 So.2d 504 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (a motion to reconsider the sentence does not fall within that category of motions that tolls the time for appeal).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.parenthetical: an application for probation does not fall within the purview of Rule 24.4 and, thus, cannot be denied by operation of law
citation_b.sentence: Cf. Ex parte Rivers, 669 So.2d 239 (Ala.Crim.App.1995) (an application for probation does not fall within the purview of Rule 24.4 and, thus, cannot be denied by operation of law).