Benson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Benson v. State

473 So. 2d 1131, 1985 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 4857

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 22, 1985

Docket8 Div. 99

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 473 So. 2d 1131 (Benson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benson v. State, 473 So. 2d 1131, 1985 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 4857 (Ala. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

TAYLOR, Judge.

Reversed on the authority of Chestnut ¶. State, 35 Ala.App. 376, 47 So.2d 248 (1950); Rorex v. State, 44 Ala. App. 112, 203 So.2d 294 (1967); McClendon v. State, 44 Ala.App. 558, 216 So.2d 302 (1968); Newsome v. State, 49 Ala.App. 248, 270 So.2d 680 (1972); Ludlum v. State, 52 Ala.App. 631, 296 So.2d 254 (1974); Pugh v. State, 343 So.2d 793 (Ala.Cr.App.1977), cert. denied, 343 So.2d 795 (Ala.1977); Town of Gulf Shores v. Jones, 412 So.2d 1259 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Kerr v. State, 416 So.2d 781 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). Where a party perfects an appeal from a lower court to circuit court, the proceeding being de novo, an arraignment of the accused must be conducted in circuit court. Although arraignment may be waived, it appears that counsel brought the failure to arraign to the attention of the court at trial and, so, did not waive arraignment. See Marsden v. State, 475 So.2d 588 (Ala.1984); Watts v. State, 435 So.2d 135 (Ala.1983).

We therefore remand for a new trial or other proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.

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

TAYLOR, Judge.

Reversed on the authority of Chestnut ¶. State, 35 Ala.App. 376, 47 So.2d 248 (1950); Rorex v. State, 44 Ala. App. 112, 203 So.2d 294 (1967); McClendon v. State, 44 Ala.App. 558, 216 So.2d 302 (1968); Newsome v. State, 49 Ala.App. 248, 270 So.2d 680 (1972); Ludlum v. State, 52 Ala.App. 631, 296 So.2d 254 (1974); Pugh v. State, 343 So.2d 793 (Ala.Cr.App.1977), cert. denied, 343 So.2d 795 (Ala.1977); Town of Gulf Shores v. Jones, 412 So.2d 1259 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Kerr v. State, 416 So.2d 781 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). Where a party perfects an appeal from a lower court to circuit court, the proceeding being de novo, an arraignment of the accused must be conducted in circuit court. Although arraignment may be waived, it appears that counsel brought the failure to arraign to the attention of the court at trial and, so, did not waive arraignment. See Marsden v. State, 475 So.2d 588 (Ala.1984); Watts v. State, 435 So.2d 135 (Ala.1983).

We therefore remand for a new trial or other proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

473 So. 2d 1131, 1985 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 4857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benson-v-state-alacrimapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack