Braswell v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Braswell v. State

113 So. 318, 22 Ala. App. 119, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 81

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 17, 1927

Docket4 Div. 252.

StatusPublished

This text of 113 So. 318 (Braswell 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

Braswell v. State, 113 So. 318, 22 Ala. App. 119, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 81 (Ala. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

This court confesses its inability to understand the exact contention made by the appellant in his brief. On the trial it appears the defendant was present “in his own proper person and by his attorneys.” A verdict of guilty was returned by the jury assessing a fine of $50. A judgment was then and there rendered against the defendant for the fine and costs, which was presently paid. This satisfied the judgment, so far as the fine and costs are concerned. . Code 1923, § 5291. This did not necessarily end the prosecution. The court still had a right and the power tp impose an additional sentence to hard labor, as additional punishment, which, at a later day of the term, it proceeded to do. Code 1923, §§ 3485, 5278.

That the imposition of this additional punishment was delayed from May 3d, the date of the verdict, until May 7th, the date of sentence, can avail the defendant nothing. The judgment was at that time within the breast of the court.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

This court confesses its inability to understand the exact contention made by the appellant in his brief. On the trial it appears the defendant was present “in his own proper person and by his attorneys.” A verdict of guilty was returned by the jury assessing a fine of $50. A judgment was then and there rendered against the defendant for the fine and costs, which was presently paid. This satisfied the judgment, so far as the fine and costs are concerned. . Code 1923, § 5291. This did not necessarily end the prosecution. The court still had a right and the power tp impose an additional sentence to hard labor, as additional punishment, which, at a later day of the term, it proceeded to do. Code 1923, §§ 3485, 5278.

That the imposition of this additional punishment was delayed from May 3d, the date of the verdict, until May 7th, the date of sentence, can avail the defendant nothing. The judgment was at that time within the breast of the court.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 So. 318, 22 Ala. App. 119, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braswell-v-state-alactapp-1927.