Gilmore v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Gilmore v. State

669 So. 2d 239, 1995 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 328, 1995 WL 579995

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedSeptember 29, 1995

DocketCR-94-1169

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 669 So. 2d 239 (Gilmore 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

Gilmore v. State, 669 So. 2d 239, 1995 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 328, 1995 WL 579995 (Ala. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

TAYLOR, Presiding Judge.

The appellant, Edward Gilmore, Jr., pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine, a violation of § 13A-12-212, Code of Alabama 1975. He was sentenced to three years in the penitentiary.

The appellant’s only contention on appeal is that the court abused its discretion in denying his request for probation. The sentence is a lawful sentence, within the minimum and maximum sentence prescribed by law. As this court has stated: “ ‘[T]he original granting or denial of probation is entirely within the discretion of the trial court, and is not reviewable upon appeal from a judgment of conviction.’ ” Gipson v. State, 646 So.2d 701, 704 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), quoting German v. State, 492 So.2d 622, 625 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). (Emphasis added.) “The appellant may not appeal from an order denying probation.” Rheuark v. State, 625 So.2d 1206, 1206 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). See also Lockett v. State, 475 So.2d 661 (Ala.Cr.App.1985); Roden v. State, 384 So.2d 1248, 1249 (Ala.Cr.App.1980). Of course, the revoking of a defendant’s probation is appealable and reviewable by this court. Thomas v. State, [Ms. CR-93-15, July 8, 1994] — So.2d - (Ala.Cr.App.1994).

This appeal is therefore due to be dismissed. See Thomas.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

All the Judges concur.

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

TAYLOR, Presiding Judge.

The appellant, Edward Gilmore, Jr., pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine, a violation of § 13A-12-212, Code of Alabama 1975. He was sentenced to three years in the penitentiary.

The appellant’s only contention on appeal is that the court abused its discretion in denying his request for probation. The sentence is a lawful sentence, within the minimum and maximum sentence prescribed by law. As this court has stated: “ ‘[T]he original granting or denial of probation is entirely within the discretion of the trial court, and is not reviewable upon appeal from a judgment of conviction.’ ” Gipson v. State, 646 So.2d 701, 704 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), quoting German v. State, 492 So.2d 622, 625 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). (Emphasis added.) “The appellant may not appeal from an order denying probation.” Rheuark v. State, 625 So.2d 1206, 1206 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). See also Lockett v. State, 475 So.2d 661 (Ala.Cr.App.1985); Roden v. State, 384 So.2d 1248, 1249 (Ala.Cr.App.1980). Of course, the revoking of a defendant’s probation is appealable and reviewable by this court. Thomas v. State, [Ms. CR-93-15, July 8, 1994] — So.2d - (Ala.Cr.App.1994).

This appeal is therefore due to be dismissed. See Thomas.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

669 So. 2d 239, 1995 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 328, 1995 WL 579995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilmore-v-state-alacrimapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack