Eddings v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Eddings v. State

571 So. 2d 388, 1990 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1613, 1990 WL 187122

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedSeptember 21, 1990

Docket7 Div. 69

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 571 So. 2d 388 (Eddings 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

Eddings v. State, 571 So. 2d 388, 1990 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1613, 1990 WL 187122 (Ala. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT

PATTERSON, Judge.

This cause was remanded by our supreme court, 559 So.2d 576, for consideration in light of Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989).

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed for the following reasons: Appellant’s contention that he was not arraigned, as required by A.R.Cr.P.Temp. 19, is procedurally barred from consideration on its merits because he waived arraignment by failing to object to going to trial without arraignment before the jury returned its verdict. Marsden v. State, 475 So.2d 588 (Ala.1984). His contention that his sentence was not properly pronounced by the trial court is procedurally barred from review, since no objection was raised as to the sentence in the trial court. His contentions that he was sentenced for an offense for which he was not convicted, that he was denied a speedy trial, and that the Habitual Felony Offender Act under which he was sentenced is unconstitutional are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.

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

ON REMAND FROM THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT

PATTERSON, Judge.

This cause was remanded by our supreme court, 559 So.2d 576, for consideration in light of Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989).

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed for the following reasons: Appellant’s contention that he was not arraigned, as required by A.R.Cr.P.Temp. 19, is procedurally barred from consideration on its merits because he waived arraignment by failing to object to going to trial without arraignment before the jury returned its verdict. Marsden v. State, 475 So.2d 588 (Ala.1984). His contention that his sentence was not properly pronounced by the trial court is procedurally barred from review, since no objection was raised as to the sentence in the trial court. His contentions that he was sentenced for an offense for which he was not convicted, that he was denied a speedy trial, and that the Habitual Felony Offender Act under which he was sentenced is unconstitutional are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

571 So. 2d 388, 1990 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1613, 1990 WL 187122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eddings-v-state-alacrimapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack