Bailey v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Bailey v. State

125 So. 693, 23 Ala. App. 369, 1930 Ala. App. LEXIS 11

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 14, 1930

Docket5 Div. 782.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 125 So. 693 (Bailey 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

Bailey v. State, 125 So. 693, 23 Ala. App. 369, 1930 Ala. App. LEXIS 11 (Ala. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

Appellant insists that the court erred in failing to give to the jury the general affirmative charge and erred in refusing defendant’s motion for a new trial. A sufficient answer to each of appellant’s contentions is that the evidence, while circumstantial, tended strongly to prove the defendant’s guilt.

However, it is noted that the sentence is for a term the minimum of which is 10’ years and the maximum is 10 years. This is a definite, determinate sentence, and does not comply either in the letter or spirit of the law as laid down in section 5268 of the Code of 1923. That- section presupposes a period of probation between the minimum and maximum term, to be fixed by the judge, who tried the case. The sentence in this case does not comply with the law. Sanders v. State, 19 Ala. App. 367, 97 So. 294.

There being no error on the trial, the judgment of conviction is affirmed, and the cause is remanded for proper sentence.

Affirmed and remanded,

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

SAMFORD, J.

Appellant insists that the court erred in failing to give to the jury the general affirmative charge and erred in refusing defendant’s motion for a new trial. A sufficient answer to each of appellant’s contentions is that the evidence, while circumstantial, tended strongly to prove the defendant’s guilt.

However, it is noted that the sentence is for a term the minimum of which is 10’ years and the maximum is 10 years. This is a definite, determinate sentence, and does not comply either in the letter or spirit of the law as laid down in section 5268 of the Code of 1923. That- section presupposes a period of probation between the minimum and maximum term, to be fixed by the judge, who tried the case. The sentence in this case does not comply with the law. Sanders v. State, 19 Ala. App. 367, 97 So. 294.

There being no error on the trial, the judgment of conviction is affirmed, and the cause is remanded for proper sentence.

Affirmed and remanded,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 So. 693, 23 Ala. App. 369, 1930 Ala. App. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-state-alactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack