Allen v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Allen v. State

165 So. 264, 27 Ala. App. 19, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 3

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 14, 1936

Docket5 Div. 973.

StatusPublished

This text of 165 So. 264 (Allen v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen v. State, 165 So. 264, 27 Ala. App. 19, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 3 (Ala. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

We have endeavored to perform our duty under the provisions of Code 1923, § 3258. But in all that leads up to and includes the judgment of conviction, we find nothing that seems to merit comment.

The able solicitor seems to have co-operated with the astute counsel representing the defendant (appellant) in stringing out the testimony adduced far beyond any need for developing the facts that were requisite — thus giving rise to a lot of unnecessary rulings and exceptions. But we have examined each of said rulings and find that they were either patently correct, or patently innocuous. Discussion seems superfluous.

The sentence did not follow correctly the verdict of the jury. For this reason, while the judgment of conviction is, hereby, affirmed, the cause is remanded for proper sentence.

Affirmed. Remanded for proper sentence.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

RICE, Judge.

We have endeavored to perform our duty under the provisions of Code 1923, § 3258. But in all that leads up to and includes the judgment of conviction, we find nothing that seems to merit comment.

The able solicitor seems to have co-operated with the astute counsel representing the defendant (appellant) in stringing out the testimony adduced far beyond any need for developing the facts that were requisite — thus giving rise to a lot of unnecessary rulings and exceptions. But we have examined each of said rulings and find that they were either patently correct, or patently innocuous. Discussion seems superfluous.

The sentence did not follow correctly the verdict of the jury. For this reason, while the judgment of conviction is, hereby, affirmed, the cause is remanded for proper sentence.

Affirmed. Remanded for proper sentence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 So. 264, 27 Ala. App. 19, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-state-alactapp-1936.