Lackey v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Lackey v. State

12 So. 2d 352, 31 Ala. App. 71

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 2, 1943

Docket8 Div. 311.

StatusPublished

This text of 12 So. 2d 352 (Lackey 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

Lackey v. State, 12 So. 2d 352, 31 Ala. App. 71 (Ala. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

SIMPSON, Judge.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the offense of violating the State prohibition law, and from a judgment and sentence, which he contends was excessive and unwarranted, this appeal was taken. There is no bill of exceptions.

The punishment was within the limits prescribed by the statute and, from aught we can say, it was justified. The judgment, therefore, must be affirmed. Johnson v. State, 24 Ala.App. 291, 135 So. 592; Rutland v. State, ante, p. 43, 11 So.2d 768.

Affirmed.

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

SIMPSON, Judge.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the offense of violating the State prohibition law, and from a judgment and sentence, which he contends was excessive and unwarranted, this appeal was taken. There is no bill of exceptions.

The punishment was within the limits prescribed by the statute and, from aught we can say, it was justified. The judgment, therefore, must be affirmed. Johnson v. State, 24 Ala.App. 291, 135 So. 592; Rutland v. State, ante, p. 43, 11 So.2d 768.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 So. 2d 352, 31 Ala. App. 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lackey-v-state-alactapp-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack