Gandy v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Gandy v. State

150 So. 2d 397, 274 Ala. 518, 1963 Ala. LEXIS 503

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 21, 1963

Docket6 Div. 958

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 150 So. 2d 397 (Gandy v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gandy v. State, 150 So. 2d 397, 274 Ala. 518, 1963 Ala. LEXIS 503 (Ala. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

COLEMAN, Justice.

Petitioner’s conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and he applies for certiorari to review that affirmance.

The entire petition for certiorari, exclusive of caption and signature, is as follows :

“Comes now, Ralph Leon Gandy, petitioner in the above styled cause, and respectfully moves this honorable court to treat the papers enclosed herewith, (upon which his appeal was taken in the Courts- of Appeals of Alabama), as his petition for writ of certiorari.”

Attached to the foregoing is a copy of brief filed by petitioner in the Court of Appeals.

For at least two reasons, the petition for certiorari is due to be denied.

First. The petition completely fails to point out any error of law in the opinion of the Court of Appeals of which petitioner complains. Where the petition fails to point out any error in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, the petition is insufficient to invite a review. Davenport-Harris Funeral Home, Inc. v. Chandler, 264 Ala. 623, 88 So.2d 878; Liberty National Life Ins. Co. v. Stringfellow, 265 Ala. 561, 92 So.2d 927; Nix v. State, 271 Ala. 628, 126 So.2d 123. The instant petition is, therefore, insufficient to invite a review of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Second. The brief attached to the petition is the only brief filed in the Supreme Court by petitioner. This brief commences : “IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF' ALABAMA,” and purports to be, as petitioner says it is, merely a copy of the brief filed by petitioner in the Court of Appeals. The refiling of the brief originally filed in the Court of Appeals is not a sufficient compliance with Supreme Court Rule 39. Ex parte Locklear, 205 Ala. 236, 87 So. 712; Gulf, M. & O. R. Co. v. Scott, 248 Ala. 250, 27 So.2d 152; Allen v. State, 249 Ala. 201, 30 So.2d 483. Under the last cited cases, the petition is, therefore, due to be dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON and GOODWYN, JJ., concur.

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

COLEMAN, Justice.

Petitioner’s conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and he applies for certiorari to review that affirmance.

The entire petition for certiorari, exclusive of caption and signature, is as follows :

“Comes now, Ralph Leon Gandy, petitioner in the above styled cause, and respectfully moves this honorable court to treat the papers enclosed herewith, (upon which his appeal was taken in the Courts- of Appeals of Alabama), as his petition for writ of certiorari.”

Attached to the foregoing is a copy of brief filed by petitioner in the Court of Appeals.

For at least two reasons, the petition for certiorari is due to be denied.

First. The petition completely fails to point out any error of law in the opinion of the Court of Appeals of which petitioner complains. Where the petition fails to point out any error in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, the petition is insufficient to invite a review. Davenport-Harris Funeral Home, Inc. v. Chandler, 264 Ala. 623, 88 So.2d 878; Liberty National Life Ins. Co. v. Stringfellow, 265 Ala. 561, 92 So.2d 927; Nix v. State, 271 Ala. 628, 126 So.2d 123. The instant petition is, therefore, insufficient to invite a review of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Second. The brief attached to the petition is the only brief filed in the Supreme Court by petitioner. This brief commences : “IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF' ALABAMA,” and purports to be, as petitioner says it is, merely a copy of the brief filed by petitioner in the Court of Appeals. The refiling of the brief originally filed in the Court of Appeals is not a sufficient compliance with Supreme Court Rule 39. Ex parte Locklear, 205 Ala. 236, 87 So. 712; Gulf, M. & O. R. Co. v. Scott, 248 Ala. 250, 27 So.2d 152; Allen v. State, 249 Ala. 201, 30 So.2d 483. Under the last cited cases, the petition is, therefore, due to be dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON and GOODWYN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 So. 2d 397, 274 Ala. 518, 1963 Ala. LEXIS 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gandy-v-state-ala-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack