Rudolph v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Rudolph v. State

339 So. 2d 144, 1976 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1584

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedOctober 26, 1976

Docket3 Div. 355

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 339 So. 2d 144 (Rudolph v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rudolph v. State, 339 So. 2d 144, 1976 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1584 (Ala. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

CATES, Presiding Judge.

Heretofore in the 1974-75 Term of this Court, without opinion, affirmed under Code 1940, T. 13, § 66, after review via T. 15, § 389, a conviction of Rudolph for the beastly crime against nature upon a fellow penal inmate — Code 1940, T. 14, § 106. No rehearing was sought. Nor did the State ask to set submission aside.

Thus, on the expiry of that term as extended on midnight October 4-5, 1975, our power over the appeal lapsed completely.

Code 1940, T. 13, § 20. Compare also decisions under T. 13, § 119.

On October 15, 1976, counsel for Rudolph filed a detailed no-merit letter. However, the cause having been finally. disposed of without the intervention of any higher court, e. g., the Supreme Court of Alabama or the Supreme Court of the United States, this court has lost all jurisdiction over the appeal. Hines v. State, 48 Ala.App. 297, 264 So.2d 218; Wade v. State, 51 Ala.App. 441, 286 So.2d 317; Ex parte Mitchell, 54 Ala.App. 203, 306 So.2d 296; and Malone v. Alabama, 5 Cir., 514 F.2d 77, 78, 79 (fn. 2).

This Court, not being competent to entertain any jurisdiction over the appeal, hereby orders that counsel’s letter be returned accompanied by a copy hereof. It will be treated as a motion which is

DISMISSED FOR MOOTNESS.

All the Judges concur.

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

CATES, Presiding Judge.

Heretofore in the 1974-75 Term of this Court, without opinion, affirmed under Code 1940, T. 13, § 66, after review via T. 15, § 389, a conviction of Rudolph for the beastly crime against nature upon a fellow penal inmate — Code 1940, T. 14, § 106. No rehearing was sought. Nor did the State ask to set submission aside.

Thus, on the expiry of that term as extended on midnight October 4-5, 1975, our power over the appeal lapsed completely.

Code 1940, T. 13, § 20. Compare also decisions under T. 13, § 119.

On October 15, 1976, counsel for Rudolph filed a detailed no-merit letter. However, the cause having been finally. disposed of without the intervention of any higher court, e. g., the Supreme Court of Alabama or the Supreme Court of the United States, this court has lost all jurisdiction over the appeal. Hines v. State, 48 Ala.App. 297, 264 So.2d 218; Wade v. State, 51 Ala.App. 441, 286 So.2d 317; Ex parte Mitchell, 54 Ala.App. 203, 306 So.2d 296; and Malone v. Alabama, 5 Cir., 514 F.2d 77, 78, 79 (fn. 2).

This Court, not being competent to entertain any jurisdiction over the appeal, hereby orders that counsel’s letter be returned accompanied by a copy hereof. It will be treated as a motion which is

DISMISSED FOR MOOTNESS.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

339 So. 2d 144, 1976 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudolph-v-state-alacrimapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack