Hamilton v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Hamilton v. State

137 So. 535, 24 Ala. App. 535, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 142

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 10, 1931

Docket4 Div. 830.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 137 So. 535 (Hamilton v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hamilton v. State, 137 So. 535, 24 Ala. App. 535, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 142 (Ala. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

There is no bill of exceptions and no error appears in the record which will affect the judgment of conviction.

However, the sentence is erroneous. The defendant was tried on a charge of petit larceny, and the verdict of the jury was; “We the jury find the defendant guilty as charged.” This verdict authorized a judgment of guilt and the imposition by the court of a sentence to hard labor or to jail and a sentence for the costs. Flowers v. State, 22 Ala. App. 27, 112 So. 221; Hollis v. State, 123 Ala. 74, 26 So. 231.

Where the cause is tried before a jury, the court has no authority to fix a fine as apart of the punishment. Code 1923, § 4908; Williams v. State, 23 Ala. App. 338, 125 So. 207.

The judgment for the fine of $100 and the sentence of thirty days, at hard labor based upon a failure to pay'said fine is set aside and held for naught.

The judgment is corrected by striking out the fine of $100 and the sentence of thirty days’ hard labor on failure to pay said fine, and as corrected the judgment is affirmed.

Corrected and affirmed.

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