Soutoulo v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Soutoulo v. State

105 So. 926, 21 Ala. App. 694

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 17, 1925

Docket1 Div. 641.

StatusPublished

This text of 105 So. 926 (Soutoulo 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

Soutoulo v. State, 105 So. 926, 21 Ala. App. 694 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

This appellant, defendant below, was convicted for the offense of violating the prohibition laws of the state. The jury by their verdict assessed a fine of $200 against him. In default of the payment of the fine and costs, the court, as the law requires, sentenced him to perform hard labor for the county. It was also brought to the attention of the court that this was the second conviction of this defendant for the violation of the pro *695 hibition laws of this state. Thereupon, as the statute requires, the court added an additional term of 3 months’ hard labor for the county. From the judgment and sentence this appeal is taken. There is no bill of exceptions. The record upon which this appeal is predicated appears regular in all respects. No error being apparent upon the record, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

This appellant, defendant below, was convicted for the offense of violating the prohibition laws of the state. The jury by their verdict assessed a fine of $200 against him. In default of the payment of the fine and costs, the court, as the law requires, sentenced him to perform hard labor for the county. It was also brought to the attention of the court that this was the second conviction of this defendant for the violation of the pro *695 hibition laws of this state. Thereupon, as the statute requires, the court added an additional term of 3 months’ hard labor for the county. From the judgment and sentence this appeal is taken. There is no bill of exceptions. The record upon which this appeal is predicated appears regular in all respects. No error being apparent upon the record, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 So. 926, 21 Ala. App. 694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soutoulo-v-state-alactapp-1925.