Corbin v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Corbin v. State

72 So. 505, 15 Ala. App. 83, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 111

DecidedJune 30, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 72 So. 505 (Corbin 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

Corbin v. State, 72 So. 505, 15 Ala. App. 83, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 111 (Ala. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, J.

The judgment of conviction from which this appeal is prosecuted was rendered on October 8, 1915, and the bill of exceptions was not presented to the trial judge until January 8, 1916, more than 90 days from the rendition of the judgment. It is true that sentence was not pronounced against the defendant until the 6th day of November, 1915; but the date of the judgment of conviction governs in fixing the time within which a bill of exceptions must be presented, and the motion of the Attorney General to strike the bill of exceptions in this case is granted. — Harper v. State, 13 Ala. App. 47, 69 South. 302; McGay v. State, 183 Ala. 41, 63 South. 70; McOllister v. State, 183 Ala. 8, 62 South. 767; Tuggle v. Wilson, 179 Ala. 671, 60 South. 391.

The proceedings of the trial court as shown by the record proper appear regular and free from error.

Affirmed.

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

BROWN, J.

The judgment of conviction from which this appeal is prosecuted was rendered on October 8, 1915, and the bill of exceptions was not presented to the trial judge until January 8, 1916, more than 90 days from the rendition of the judgment. It is true that sentence was not pronounced against the defendant until the 6th day of November, 1915; but the date of the judgment of conviction governs in fixing the time within which a bill of exceptions must be presented, and the motion of the Attorney General to strike the bill of exceptions in this case is granted. — Harper v. State, 13 Ala. App. 47, 69 South. 302; McGay v. State, 183 Ala. 41, 63 South. 70; McOllister v. State, 183 Ala. 8, 62 South. 767; Tuggle v. Wilson, 179 Ala. 671, 60 South. 391.

The proceedings of the trial court as shown by the record proper appear regular and free from error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 So. 505, 15 Ala. App. 83, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corbin-v-state-alactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack