Davis v. State

158 So. 902, 26 Ala. App. 285, 1935 Ala. App. LEXIS 22
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided January 22, 1935·No. 7 Div. 108.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of felony as charged in the second count of the indictment. Said count of the indictment charged him with the offense of unlawfully having in his possession a still, etc., to be used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors or beverages. The court, as the law requires, sentenced him to serve an indeterminate *286 term of imprisonment in the penitentiary. Prom the judgment of conviction this appeal was taken.

The action of the trial court in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial is not presented for consideration. There is no bill of exceptions, the appeal is rested solely upon the record proper, and, where this is true, no question other than the regularity of the proceedings in the court below as shown by the record can be considered. We. ascertain from a consideration of this record that the proceedings were regular in all- respects, and, as no error is apparent, the judgment of conviction appealed from will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Davis v. State, 158 So. 902, 26 Ala. App. 285, 1935 Ala. App. LEXIS 22 (Ala. Ct. App. 1935).

158 So. 902 (Davis v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Oldham v. Town of Rogersville
169 So. 331 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1936)