Green v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Green v. State

133 So. 740, 222 Ala. 556, 1931 Ala. LEXIS 327

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedApril 2, 1931

Docket6 Div. 894.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 133 So. 740 (Green 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

Green v. State, 133 So. 740, 222 Ala. 556, 1931 Ala. LEXIS 327 (Ala. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMAS, J.

The question propounded for decision is as follows: “When a defendant has been convicted of grand larceny should he be sentenced under section 5267 et seq., or section 5265 of Code 1923?”

The two statutes, section 5267. et seq., and section 5265, Code of 1923, present a conflict as to the place (whether by imprisonment ’or hard labor, in eases indicated in the decisions by the Court of Appeals) of punishment for the time indicated. The Act of 1919, p. 148, as codified, section 5267,' Code, et seq., providing for the indeterminate sentence, is the last specific expression of the legislative will in respects indicated on the point at issue, and should be followed by the trial courts in the imposition of 'sentehees in designation of the place of their service. Bibb v. State, 83 Ala. 84, 92, 3 So. 711. See, also, Ex parte Thomas, 113 Ala. 1, 21 So. 369; Robinson v. State, 6 Ala. App. 13, 14, 60 So. 558; Ex parte Robinson, 183 Ala. 30, 63 So. 177; Simmons v. State, 22 Ala. App. 126, 113 So. 466.

The Court of Appeals has properly applied the statute in the eases cited in the foregoing interrogatory.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAXRE and BROWN, JJ., concur.

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

THOMAS, J.

The question propounded for decision is as follows: “When a defendant has been convicted of grand larceny should he be sentenced under section 5267 et seq., or section 5265 of Code 1923?”

The two statutes, section 5267. et seq., and section 5265, Code of 1923, present a conflict as to the place (whether by imprisonment ’or hard labor, in eases indicated in the decisions by the Court of Appeals) of punishment for the time indicated. The Act of 1919, p. 148, as codified, section 5267,' Code, et seq., providing for the indeterminate sentence, is the last specific expression of the legislative will in respects indicated on the point at issue, and should be followed by the trial courts in the imposition of 'sentehees in designation of the place of their service. Bibb v. State, 83 Ala. 84, 92, 3 So. 711. See, also, Ex parte Thomas, 113 Ala. 1, 21 So. 369; Robinson v. State, 6 Ala. App. 13, 14, 60 So. 558; Ex parte Robinson, 183 Ala. 30, 63 So. 177; Simmons v. State, 22 Ala. App. 126, 113 So. 466.

The Court of Appeals has properly applied the statute in the eases cited in the foregoing interrogatory.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAXRE and BROWN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 So. 740, 222 Ala. 556, 1931 Ala. LEXIS 327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-state-ala-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack