Williams v. State

77 So. 919, 16 Ala. App. 325, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 7
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided February 5, 1918·No. 6 Div. 419.·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

BRICKEN, J.

[1,2] The defendant was tried under an indictment charging him with robbery, was; convicted of the offense of grand larceny, and duly sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the penitentiary as provided by law. This appeal is on the record proper, without a bill of exceptions, and shows regular proceedings and judgment of conviction following the verdict of the jury. There is a certificate from the presiding judge that *326 the time for tendering the hill of exceptions in this cause has expired, and that no bill of exceptions had been presented to him. The given and refused charges are set out in the record, but this court cannot review and pass (upon said charges in the absence of the bill of exceptions and the orhl charge of the court.

We And nothing in the record authorizing a reversal of the judgment from which the appeal is prosecuted.

Affirmed.

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

Williams v. State, 77 So. 919, 16 Ala. App. 325, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 7 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918).

77 So. 919 (Williams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hardy v. State
91 So. 891 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1921)
Jones v. State
84 So. 627 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1919)