Statum v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Statum v. State

153 So. 666, 26 Ala. App. 85, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 26

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 20, 1934

Docket8 Div. 824.

StatusPublished

This text of 153 So. 666 (Statum 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

Statum v. State, 153 So. 666, 26 Ala. App. 85, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 26 (Ala. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

There is no bill of exceptions in this case, and the appeal is rested solely upon the record proper. Under this status we are without authority to review the action of the trial court in overruling defendant’s motion for a new trial. The same applies to the refusal of special written charges.

The conviction of this appellant was for the offense of an attempt to commit an assault with the intent to ravish. The court sentenced him in accordance with the verdict of the jury to six months hard labor for the county, and an additional term of ninety days to pay the costs. No question is presented for our consideration except the regularity of the proceedings in the lower court as shown by the record. No error appearing in this connection, the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

There is no bill of exceptions in this case, and the appeal is rested solely upon the record proper. Under this status we are without authority to review the action of the trial court in overruling defendant’s motion for a new trial. The same applies to the refusal of special written charges.

The conviction of this appellant was for the offense of an attempt to commit an assault with the intent to ravish. The court sentenced him in accordance with the verdict of the jury to six months hard labor for the county, and an additional term of ninety days to pay the costs. No question is presented for our consideration except the regularity of the proceedings in the lower court as shown by the record. No error appearing in this connection, the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 So. 666, 26 Ala. App. 85, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/statum-v-state-alactapp-1934.