King v. State

Decision Date14 September 1971
Docket Number2 Div. 54
Citation47 Ala.App. 360,254 So.2d 432
PartiesJames Buchannan KING, alias v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Court of Criminal Appeals

L. Y. Sadler, Jr., Camden, for appellant.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Jasper B. Roberts, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of assault with intent to rob and was sentenced to nine years in the state penitentiary. He appeals.

The sole insistence of appellant on this appeal is that he was forced to plead guilty because of the refusal of the trial judge to grant his request for a continuance when his case was called for trial on November 26, 1968.

The record reflects that the indictment in this case was returned on November 7, 1967. Defendant was arraigned, entered a plea of not guilty, and was released on bail on November 28, 1967. The cause was continued on motion of defendant. On April 15, 1968, the case was again continued on defendant's motion, due to his illness. On November 25, 1968, when the case was called forfeiture was entered against defendant and his bail with a writ of arrest returnable instanter. On November 26, 1968, the motion for continuance was heard and overruled and defendant then pled guilty. The testimony taken on the motion for continuance is made a part of the record on appeal.

In support of the motion for continuance Mrs. Hazel King, defendant's wife, testified that W. D. Partlow, Jr., the lawyer who had represented her husband on arraignment and when the two continuances were granted, had withdrawn from the case but had not definitely told her or her husband that he had withdrawn; that on November 25, 1968, she received a notice in her post office box of the arrival of certified mail; the notice, introduced in evidence, was postmarked at Pinson, Alabama, on November 22, 1968; that she and defendant live at Pinson, fifteen miles from Birmingham; that her husband was ill and she did not go to the post office and never saw the notice until after her husband was taken to jail, November 25, 1968; that in April, 1968, she mailed a registered letter to Mr. McNeill, the Circuit Clerk, at Camden, Alabama, enclosing a doctor's certificate that her husband was ill; that she also called him on the telephone and after talking with him she thought the case would be called at the March 1969, term of court and had made a written notation to that effect. A receipt for registered mail dated April 15, 1968, from Mrs. King to Mr. Earl McNeill, Clerk, Camden, Alabama, on which there was a written notation 'March, 1969,' was introduced in evidence. Also introduced was the reverse side of a counter check with pencil notations made by the witness, '682--9117, Clerk of the Court in Wilcox County, Camden, Ala.,' and the date 'March, 69.'

Mr. McNeill, Circuit Clerk, testified he had served as clerk for sixteen years and during that time criminal court had never been held in March in Wilcox County; that he had talked with Mrs. King about her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Morrison v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 17 Julio 1979
    ...He insists that this denied the appellant his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. This court, in King v. State, 47 Ala.App. 360, 254 So.2d 432, "An application for continuance on the ground that counsel has not had sufficient time to prepare for trial is addressed to th......
  • Ray Hughes Chevrolet, Inc. v. Gordon
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 3 Octubre 1975
  • Parker v. Sutton
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 22 Septiembre 1971
    ... ... Our examination of the evidence convinces us that it supports either count. Further, a verdict under either count, dependent upon the state of the evidence, may include punitive damages. Roan v. Smith, 272 Ala. 538, 133 So.2d 224; Carolina Casualty Ins. Co. v. Tisdale, 46 Ala.App. 50, ... ...
  • King v. State, 2 Div. 545
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 11 Noviembre 1971

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT