Patty v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Patty v. State

45 So. 2d 333, 35 Ala. App. 247, 1950 Ala. App. LEXIS 392

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 28, 1950

Docket7 Div. 34

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 45 So. 2d 333 (Patty 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

Patty v. State, 45 So. 2d 333, 35 Ala. App. 247, 1950 Ala. App. LEXIS 392 (Ala. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinions

HARWOOD, Judge.

This cause was submitted on the record proper. Pursuant to a writ of certiorari issued by this court after the original submission of this cause had been set aside, a certified copy of the judgment entry from the clerk below has been forwarded to this court.

The appellants were indicted jointly, the indictment containing two counts, one charging burglary, and the other charging grand larceny.

The judgment entry forwarded pursuant to the writ of certiorari shows that both of the accused entered pleas of guilty, and were by the court adjudged guilty of grand larceny.

The said judgment then recites: “And now on'the 30th day of March 1949, the defendants being present in open court in person, and being asked by the court if they had anything to say why the sentence of the law should not be pronounced upon them say nothing. It is therefore¹ considered and adjudged by the court and it is the judgment and sentence of the court [248]*248that the defendants, R. B. Patty and Leonard Weaver, be imprisoned in the penitentiary of the State of Alabama for a period of 4 years, each.” (Italics ours).

Appellants’ counsel argues that the above constitutes a joint sentence, rather than one several as to each accused. This argument is untenable. The use of the word each constituted a sentence on each one of the defendants separately. See Vol. 14, Words and Phrases, Perm.Ed., page 5, for numerous legal definitions and interpretations of the word “each.”

Otherwise, no error probably injurious to the substantial rights of appellants is disclosed by this record proper, and this cause is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

HARWOOD, Judge.

This cause was submitted on the record proper. Pursuant to a writ of certiorari issued by this court after the original submission of this cause had been set aside, a certified copy of the judgment entry from the clerk below has been forwarded to this court.

The appellants were indicted jointly, the indictment containing two counts, one charging burglary, and the other charging grand larceny.

The judgment entry forwarded pursuant to the writ of certiorari shows that both of the accused entered pleas of guilty, and were by the court adjudged guilty of grand larceny.

The said judgment then recites: “And now on'the 30th day of March 1949, the defendants being present in open court in person, and being asked by the court if they had anything to say why the sentence of the law should not be pronounced upon them say nothing. It is therefore¹ considered and adjudged by the court and it is the judgment and sentence of the court [248]*248that the defendants, R. B. Patty and Leonard Weaver, be imprisoned in the penitentiary of the State of Alabama for a period of 4 years, each.” (Italics ours).

Appellants’ counsel argues that the above constitutes a joint sentence, rather than one several as to each accused. This argument is untenable. The use of the word each constituted a sentence on each one of the defendants separately. See Vol. 14, Words and Phrases, Perm.Ed., page 5, for numerous legal definitions and interpretations of the word “each.”

Otherwise, no error probably injurious to the substantial rights of appellants is disclosed by this record proper, and this cause is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 So. 2d 333, 35 Ala. App. 247, 1950 Ala. App. LEXIS 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patty-v-state-alactapp-1950.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack