Hicks v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Hicks v. State

141 So. 921, 25 Ala. App. 639

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 10, 1932

Docket6 Div. 261.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 141 So. 921 (Hicks 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

Hicks v. State, 141 So. 921, 25 Ala. App. 639 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellant was charged, by .affidavit, etc., with the offense of violating the laws of our state--by having prohibited liquor in his possession. He was tried first in the county, cqurt, then, being convicted there and appealing, in the circuit court. The manner of his being put ou trial;, the trial, etc., appear in 'all' things regular.

No exceptions worthy of mention were reserved on the taking of testimony. He was fairly convicted.

The jury trying his case returned the following verdict: “We the jury find the defend-' ant guilty as charged in the complaint.”

In this situation, it was the duty of the court to impose punishment upon.the defendant (appellant) in accordance with Code 1923, § 5286, which appears not to have been done. And see Harkey v. State, 13 Ala. App. 201; 68 So. 698; and May v. State, 22 Ala. App. 239, 114 So. 423.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed, but the cause is remanded for sentence in accordance with what we have said above.

Affirmed. Remanded for proper sentence..

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