Jarnigan v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Jarnigan v. State

132 So. 50, 222 Ala. 143, 1930 Ala. LEXIS 550

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 4, 1930

Docket8 Div. 241.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 132 So. 50 (Jarnigan 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

Jarnigan v. State, 132 So. 50, 222 Ala. 143, 1930 Ala. LEXIS 550 (Ala. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

Petitioner was convicted of violating the Act of September 6,1927 (Acts, p. 704), which prohibits the transportation of liquors “in quantities of five gallons or more.” The sentence pronounced upon petitioner was that he “be imprisoned in the penitentiary of the State of Alabama for a term of not less than two years and not less than two years and six months,” etc.

The court here does not concur in the opinion that “the discrepancy complained of;” in that part of the sentence-which we have quoted, “is a mere clerical misprision and self corrective.” We may very readily conceive that the form of this sentence is the result of mere inadvertence somewhere; but the record must be accepted at its face value; the court cannot assume a meaning not expressed by the sentence. A sentence must not be ambiguous. It must be clearly expressed. 16 Corpus Juris, 1304. “Uncertainty, inconsistency in the record, renders the judgment or sentence erroneous.” Bradley v. State, 69 Ala. 321. The sentence under *144 review is uncertain, inconsistent, and erroneous.

We find no other error of which complaint is made on this application.

The cause will be remanded to the Court of Appeals in order that it may remand the cause to the trial court, where a proper sentence will be pronounced.

Writ awarded.

All the Justices concur.

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

SAYRE, J.

Petitioner was convicted of violating the Act of September 6,1927 (Acts, p. 704), which prohibits the transportation of liquors “in quantities of five gallons or more.” The sentence pronounced upon petitioner was that he “be imprisoned in the penitentiary of the State of Alabama for a term of not less than two years and not less than two years and six months,” etc.

The court here does not concur in the opinion that “the discrepancy complained of;” in that part of the sentence-which we have quoted, “is a mere clerical misprision and self corrective.” We may very readily conceive that the form of this sentence is the result of mere inadvertence somewhere; but the record must be accepted at its face value; the court cannot assume a meaning not expressed by the sentence. A sentence must not be ambiguous. It must be clearly expressed. 16 Corpus Juris, 1304. “Uncertainty, inconsistency in the record, renders the judgment or sentence erroneous.” Bradley v. State, 69 Ala. 321. The sentence under *144 review is uncertain, inconsistent, and erroneous.

We find no other error of which complaint is made on this application.

The cause will be remanded to the Court of Appeals in order that it may remand the cause to the trial court, where a proper sentence will be pronounced.

Writ awarded.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 So. 50, 222 Ala. 143, 1930 Ala. LEXIS 550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jarnigan-v-state-ala-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack