Shaw v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Shaw v. State

110 So. 168, 21 Ala. App. 387, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 152

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 13, 1926

Docket8 Div. 443.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 110 So. 168 (Shaw 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

Shaw v. State, 110 So. 168, 21 Ala. App. 387, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 152 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

It is not within the province of this court to grant the relief sought by the so-called appeal before us. To do so would be an assumption by this court of the pardoning powers. We have read the insistences contained in this transcript, and the proof, which appears without conflict, offered in the court below on the motion for a new trial. If the facts detailed are true, this man should be promptly liberated, and had we jurisdiction or authority so to do, such would be the order of this court. But the pardoning power rests with his excellency, the Governor, and to him and his advisory pardoning board should this matter be presented. As the matter is here presented we can only order an affirmance of the judgment appealed from, as no record of the proceedings upon the main trial is incorporated in the transcript, and in the absence of such record we cannot say that the court was in error in overruling appellant’s rpotion for a new trial.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

It is not within the province of this court to grant the relief sought by the so-called appeal before us. To do so would be an assumption by this court of the pardoning powers. We have read the insistences contained in this transcript, and the proof, which appears without conflict, offered in the court below on the motion for a new trial. If the facts detailed are true, this man should be promptly liberated, and had we jurisdiction or authority so to do, such would be the order of this court. But the pardoning power rests with his excellency, the Governor, and to him and his advisory pardoning board should this matter be presented. As the matter is here presented we can only order an affirmance of the judgment appealed from, as no record of the proceedings upon the main trial is incorporated in the transcript, and in the absence of such record we cannot say that the court was in error in overruling appellant’s rpotion for a new trial.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 So. 168, 21 Ala. App. 387, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaw-v-state-alactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack