Duboss v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Duboss v. State

73 So. 121, 15 Ala. App. 233, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 172

DecidedNovember 28, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 73 So. 121 (Duboss 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

Duboss v. State, 73 So. 121, 15 Ala. App. 233, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 172 (Ala. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] J.M. DuBose was convicted of a misdemeanor and he appeals. Affirmed as to the conviction but reversed and remanded for proper sentence. (1) The appellant seeks to show by ex parte affidavits that he was not in court when the sentence of the court *Page 234 was pronounced against him. The judgment entry in the record recites: "The defendant, being in open court, is sentenced to four months' hard labor for the county of Chilton, imposed by the court."

There is no contention that the judgment of the court as it appears on the record in the court below is not correctly transcribed. It is well settled that such records cannot be varied or impeached by evidence aliunde. — Edinburgh L. M.Co. v. Canterbury, 169 Ala. 444, 53 So. 823.

(2) The sentence, however, is not regular, as it does not appear whether the sentence to four months' hard labor was for the payment of the fine and costs, or was additional punishment for the offense. Whether the one or the other, of necessity, it was "imposed by the court."

(3) The judgment of conviction is affirmed, but the sentence is vacated, and the cause remanded, that the defendant may be sentenced. — Bryant v. State, 13 Ala. App. 206, 68 So. 704.

Affirmed in part, and in part reversed and remanded.

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

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] J.M. DuBose was convicted of a misdemeanor and he appeals. Affirmed as to the conviction but reversed and remanded for proper sentence. (1) The appellant seeks to show by ex parte affidavits that he was not in court when the sentence of the court *Page 234 was pronounced against him. The judgment entry in the record recites: "The defendant, being in open court, is sentenced to four months' hard labor for the county of Chilton, imposed by the court."

There is no contention that the judgment of the court as it appears on the record in the court below is not correctly transcribed. It is well settled that such records cannot be varied or impeached by evidence aliunde. — Edinburgh L. M.Co. v. Canterbury, 169 Ala. 444, 53 So. 823.

(2) The sentence, however, is not regular, as it does not appear whether the sentence to four months' hard labor was for the payment of the fine and costs, or was additional punishment for the offense. Whether the one or the other, of necessity, it was "imposed by the court."

(3) The judgment of conviction is affirmed, but the sentence is vacated, and the cause remanded, that the defendant may be sentenced. — Bryant v. State, 13 Ala. App. 206, 68 So. 704.

Affirmed in part, and in part reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 So. 121, 15 Ala. App. 233, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duboss-v-state-alactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack