Kelly v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Kelly v. State

94 So. 925, 19 Ala. App. 686

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 21, 1922

Docket1 Div. 494.

StatusPublished

This text of 94 So. 925 (Kelly 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

Kelly v. State, 94 So. 925, 19 Ala. App. 686 (Ala. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

'BRICKEN, P. J.

The grand jury of Mobile county, at the Eall term, 1920, returned an indictment against this defendant (appellant here), charging him with the, offense of receiving '.or concealing, etc., stolen property, consisting of eertain'designated money, the property of Robert M. Peterson and Henry G. Peterson.' He was duly arraigned upon the indictment, and interposed a plea of not guilty, the trial resulting in a verdict of guilty, to wit: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged of receiving $20 of the stolen money.” No fine was - assessed by the jury, and, in accordance, with the statute, the court, af jer hav-, ing .adjudged, the defendant guilty, duly sentenced him to hard labor for the county for,a term of three months. From this judgment he appeals, and the cause is here submitted upon the record proper, there being no bill of exceptions. The time for filing a bill of exceptions has expired. There is no error of a reversible nature apparent on the record. The proceedings appear to be regular in all respects. The'judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed. Affirmed.

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

'BRICKEN, P. J.

The grand jury of Mobile county, at the Eall term, 1920, returned an indictment against this defendant (appellant here), charging him with the, offense of receiving '.or concealing, etc., stolen property, consisting of eertain'designated money, the property of Robert M. Peterson and Henry G. Peterson.' He was duly arraigned upon the indictment, and interposed a plea of not guilty, the trial resulting in a verdict of guilty, to wit: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged of receiving $20 of the stolen money.” No fine was - assessed by the jury, and, in accordance, with the statute, the court, af jer hav-, ing .adjudged, the defendant guilty, duly sentenced him to hard labor for the county for,a term of three months. From this judgment he appeals, and the cause is here submitted upon the record proper, there being no bill of exceptions. The time for filing a bill of exceptions has expired. There is no error of a reversible nature apparent on the record. The proceedings appear to be regular in all respects. The'judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 So. 925, 19 Ala. App. 686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-state-alactapp-1922.