Jones v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Jones v. State

57 So. 1031, 3 Ala. App. 229, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 432

DecidedJanuary 30, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 57 So. 1031 (Jones 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

Jones v. State, 57 So. 1031, 3 Ala. App. 229, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 432 (Ala. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

WALKER, P. J.

It appears from the petition or the writ of habeas corpus, the return to the writ, and the evidence offered on the hearing that the petitioner was detained by the superintendent of streets for the ctiy of Troy under a sentence “to hard labor for the mayor and eouncilmen of Troy 200 days to pay fine, 8 days to pay costs,” imposed by the mayor of Troy on petitioner’s failure to pay or confess judgment for the fine and costs assessed against him on his plea of guilty to a charge of assault and battery.

The charge imported an offense against the criminal law of the state, as the petition alleged it to be; there being no suggestion that the prosecution was for a violation of a municipal ordinance. “When a person has been tried and convicted of any offense which is a misdemeanor under the state laws, by a. municipal officer empowered by law to try such offenses', he must be punished as provided by law:” This means that he shall be punished as provided by the laws of the state.—Culpepper v. Adams 1 Ala. App. 536, 55 South. 325. Under the state law a person convicted of an assault and battery must “be fined not more than five hundred dollars, and may also be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county, for not more than six months”—Code, § 6306 On a conviction on such a charge, there is no authority of law for sentencing the defendant to hard labor for a municipality'

It appearing that the judgment under which the petitioner was held is not within the power or jurisdiction [231]*231•of the mayor to impose on a conviction under such a •charge, and is therefore void, the order or judgment appealed from is reversed, and a judgment discharging the appellant from custody will here he rendered

Reversed and rendered.

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

WALKER, P. J.

It appears from the petition or the writ of habeas corpus, the return to the writ, and the evidence offered on the hearing that the petitioner was detained by the superintendent of streets for the ctiy of Troy under a sentence “to hard labor for the mayor and eouncilmen of Troy 200 days to pay fine, 8 days to pay costs,” imposed by the mayor of Troy on petitioner’s failure to pay or confess judgment for the fine and costs assessed against him on his plea of guilty to a charge of assault and battery.

The charge imported an offense against the criminal law of the state, as the petition alleged it to be; there being no suggestion that the prosecution was for a violation of a municipal ordinance. “When a person has been tried and convicted of any offense which is a misdemeanor under the state laws, by a. municipal officer empowered by law to try such offenses', he must be punished as provided by law:” This means that he shall be punished as provided by the laws of the state.—Culpepper v. Adams 1 Ala. App. 536, 55 South. 325. Under the state law a person convicted of an assault and battery must “be fined not more than five hundred dollars, and may also be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county, for not more than six months”—Code, § 6306 On a conviction on such a charge, there is no authority of law for sentencing the defendant to hard labor for a municipality'

It appearing that the judgment under which the petitioner was held is not within the power or jurisdiction [231]*231•of the mayor to impose on a conviction under such a •charge, and is therefore void, the order or judgment appealed from is reversed, and a judgment discharging the appellant from custody will here he rendered

Reversed and rendered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 So. 1031, 3 Ala. App. 229, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-state-alactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack