Hankins v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Hankins v. State

154 So. 821, 26 Ala. App. 146, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 68

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 15, 1934

Docket6 Div. 568.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 154 So. 821 (Hankins 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

Hankins v. State, 154 So. 821, 26 Ala. App. 146, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 68 (Ala. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was charged by indictment with assault with intent to murder P. A. Van-diver. Under an indictment of this character a conviction may be had of a simple assault or an assault and battery. Miller v. State, 21 Ala. App. 261, 107 So. 226.

The trial of this appellant in the court below resulted in his conviction for the offense of assault and battery; the jury assessed a fine against him of $100. He having failed to pay the fine and costs, the court, as the law requires, sentenced him to perform hard labor for the county. Judgment of conviction was duly pronounced and entered, from which this appeal was taken. The appeal is upon the record proper only; there is no bill of exceptions, in the absence of which no question can be considered except the regularity of the proceedings in the court below as disclosed by the record. This question has had our consideration. We discover no error apparent on the record. It is regular in all respects. The judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was charged by indictment with assault with intent to murder P. A. Van-diver. Under an indictment of this character a conviction may be had of a simple assault or an assault and battery. Miller v. State, 21 Ala. App. 261, 107 So. 226.

The trial of this appellant in the court below resulted in his conviction for the offense of assault and battery; the jury assessed a fine against him of $100. He having failed to pay the fine and costs, the court, as the law requires, sentenced him to perform hard labor for the county. Judgment of conviction was duly pronounced and entered, from which this appeal was taken. The appeal is upon the record proper only; there is no bill of exceptions, in the absence of which no question can be considered except the regularity of the proceedings in the court below as disclosed by the record. This question has had our consideration. We discover no error apparent on the record. It is regular in all respects. The judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 So. 821, 26 Ala. App. 146, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hankins-v-state-alactapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack