27 Ala. App. 19 165 So. 264

165 So. 264

ALLEN v. STATE.

5 Div. 973.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Jan. 14, 1936.

Pruet & Glass, of Ashland, for appellant.

A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.

RICE, Judge.

We have endeavored to perform our duty under the provisions of Code 1923, § 3258. But in all that leads up to and includes the judgment of conviction, we find nothing that seems to merit comment.

The able solicitor seems to have co-operated with the astute counsel representing the defendant (appellant) in stringing out the testimony adduced far beyond any need for developing the facts that were requisite — thus giving rise to a lot of unnecessary rulings and exceptions. But we have examined each of said rulings and find that they were either patently correct, or patently innocuous. Discussion seems superfluous.

The sentence did not follow correctly the verdict of the jury. For this reason, while the judgment of conviction is, hereby, affirmed, the cause is remanded for proper sentence.

Affirmed. Remanded for proper sentence.

Allen v. State
27 Ala. App. 19 165 So. 264

Case Details

Name
Allen v. State
Decision Date
Jan 14, 1936
Citations

27 Ala. App. 19

165 So. 264

Jurisdiction
Alabama

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!