Engstrom v. City of Mobile
243 So. 2d 529, 46 Ala. App. 445, 1971 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 421
Opinion
Appellant was convicted of possessing obscene printed matter in violation of a Mobile City Ordinance.
No assignments of error appear in the record filed in this Court. For this reason the judgment appealed from is due to be affirmed. Ray v. City of Prichard, 45 Ala.App. 32, 222 So.2d 345, cert. denied Ala., 222 So.2d 346; Parks v. City of Montgomery, 38 Ala.App. 681, 92 So.2d 683.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Engstrom v. City of Mobile, 243 So. 2d 529, 46 Ala. App. 445, 1971 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 421 (Ala. Ct. App. 1971).
243 So. 2d 529 (Engstrom v. City of Mobile) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Parks v. City of Montgomery
92 So. 2d 683 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1957)
Ray v. City of Prichard
222 So. 2d 345 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1969)