English v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

English v. State

457 So. 2d 458

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedOctober 9, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 457 So. 2d 458 (English 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

English v. State, 457 So. 2d 458 (Ala. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Floyd English was indicted for "knowingly enter[ing] or remain[ing] unlawfully in a building of Emily B. Davis with intent to commit a crime therein", in violation of § 13A-7-7, Code of Alabama 1975. The jury found the appellant "guilty of Burglary in the Third Degree as charged", and following a sentencing hearing the trial court sentenced the appellant to ten years in the penitentiary pursuant to the habitual offender act.

I The only issue raised on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.

The sufficiency of the evidence is raised for the first time on appeal. It has long been the established law in this state that the sufficiency of the evidence is not subject to review by this court unless the appellant has challenged such evidence by a motion to exclude the State's evidence, motion for judgment of acquittal, request for the affirmative charge, or through a motion for new trial filed in the trial court. SeeGeorge v. State, 54 Ala. App. 90, 304 So.2d 908 (1974); Sprinklev. State, 368 So.2d 554 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), writ quashed,368 So.2d 565 (Ala. 1979); Lewis v. State, 372 So.2d 882 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 372 So.2d 885 (Ala. 1979);Johnson v. State, 424 So.2d 1379 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982).

In the present case, the record does not reveal that any of the above procedures were followed. Therefore this court has nothing before it which can be subjected to review. *Page 459

This record is free of error and therefore this cause is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All the Judges concur.

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

Floyd English was indicted for "knowingly enter[ing] or remain[ing] unlawfully in a building of Emily B. Davis with intent to commit a crime therein", in violation of § 13A-7-7, Code of Alabama 1975. The jury found the appellant "guilty of Burglary in the Third Degree as charged", and following a sentencing hearing the trial court sentenced the appellant to ten years in the penitentiary pursuant to the habitual offender act.

I The only issue raised on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.

The sufficiency of the evidence is raised for the first time on appeal. It has long been the established law in this state that the sufficiency of the evidence is not subject to review by this court unless the appellant has challenged such evidence by a motion to exclude the State's evidence, motion for judgment of acquittal, request for the affirmative charge, or through a motion for new trial filed in the trial court. SeeGeorge v. State, 54 Ala. App. 90, 304 So.2d 908 (1974); Sprinklev. State, 368 So.2d 554 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978), writ quashed,368 So.2d 565 (Ala. 1979); Lewis v. State, 372 So.2d 882 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 372 So.2d 885 (Ala. 1979);Johnson v. State, 424 So.2d 1379 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982).

In the present case, the record does not reveal that any of the above procedures were followed. Therefore this court has nothing before it which can be subjected to review. *Page 459

This record is free of error and therefore this cause is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

457 So. 2d 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/english-v-state-alacrimapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack