Suds v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Suds v. State

180 So. 735, 28 Ala. App. 198, 1938 Ala. App. LEXIS 125

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 19, 1938

Docket1 Div. 294.

StatusPublished

This text of 180 So. 735 (Suds 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

Suds v. State, 180 So. 735, 28 Ala. App. 198, 1938 Ala. App. LEXIS 125 (Ala. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

The appellant, defendant below, was charged by indictment with the offense of burglary, in that, with intent to rape, he broke into and entered the dwelling house of Sophia Williamson, etc.

. Upon arraignment and before pleading to the merits of the indictment, the defendant interposed a plea of misnomer insisting that his true name is Eddie Suggs, and not “Eddie Suds,” as alleged in the indictment; and that he has never been known or called by the name of Eddie “Suds,” etc. Said plea was in proper form and substance, and verified by oath of the defendant. Issue was joined upon said plea and the question was submitted to the jury on the evidence adduced upon the hearing of the matter. The jury decided adversely to the contention of the defendant, stating: “We the jury find that the defendant is known by the name of Eddie Suds.” Whereupon, the defendant interposed his plea of not guilty and the trial proceeded, resulting in the conviction of defendant “as charged in the indictment.” The court duly pronounced and entered judgment of conviction, and sentenced him to serve an indeterminate period of imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not less than three years nor more than three years and six months. From said judgment of conviction this appeal was taken.

This appeal is rested upon the record proper only; there being no bill of exceptions. Upon examination we find the proceedings in the lower court regular in all things. No error being apparent, 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.

The appellant, defendant below, was charged by indictment with the offense of burglary, in that, with intent to rape, he broke into and entered the dwelling house of Sophia Williamson, etc.

. Upon arraignment and before pleading to the merits of the indictment, the defendant interposed a plea of misnomer insisting that his true name is Eddie Suggs, and not “Eddie Suds,” as alleged in the indictment; and that he has never been known or called by the name of Eddie “Suds,” etc. Said plea was in proper form and substance, and verified by oath of the defendant. Issue was joined upon said plea and the question was submitted to the jury on the evidence adduced upon the hearing of the matter. The jury decided adversely to the contention of the defendant, stating: “We the jury find that the defendant is known by the name of Eddie Suds.” Whereupon, the defendant interposed his plea of not guilty and the trial proceeded, resulting in the conviction of defendant “as charged in the indictment.” The court duly pronounced and entered judgment of conviction, and sentenced him to serve an indeterminate period of imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not less than three years nor more than three years and six months. From said judgment of conviction this appeal was taken.

This appeal is rested upon the record proper only; there being no bill of exceptions. Upon examination we find the proceedings in the lower court regular in all things. No error being apparent, the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 So. 735, 28 Ala. App. 198, 1938 Ala. App. LEXIS 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suds-v-state-alactapp-1938.