Albert v. State, 1 Div. 45

Decision Date20 December 1962
Docket Number1 Div. 45
Citation274 Ala. 579,150 So.2d 198
PartiesJames Marvin ALBERT v. STATE of Alabama.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Granade & Granade, Chatom, for appellant.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., Bernard F. Sykes, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Roy E. Hicks, Montgomery, Legal Research Aide, for the State.

SIMPSON, Justice.

Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of murder in the first degree and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

The State has moved to strike the court reporter's transcript of the testimony, and in the alternative to strike the transcript of the record on appeal, and to dismiss the appeal, because the transcript was not filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court within the time allowed by law; and because the transcript was not filed with the Clerk of this Court within the time allowed by law.

Appellant expressed a desire to appeal on November 1, 1961 when the judgment was entered by the lower court, it being so noted in the judgment entry. The trial court retained jurisdiction for ruling on appellant's motion for a new trial and denied the motion on January 4, 1962. The transcript of the testimony was filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court on March 24, 1962, some 80 days from the ruling on the motion for a new trial. Another notice of appeal was found in the record dated February 3, 1962, some 49 days before the transcript was filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court.

The governing statutes, § 827(1) and (4), Tit. 7, Code of Ala. 1940, as Amended, provide that the court reporter's certified transcript shall be filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court within 60 days from the date of the taking of the appeal or within 60 days from the date of the court's ruling on the motion for a new trial, whichever date is later.

Section 368, Tit. 15, Code of Ala. 1940, as Amended, concerns the manner of taking appeals in criminal cases providing two alternatives:

' § 368. Manner of taking appeals.--Appeals in criminal cases must be taken at the time of sentence or confession of judgment, or within six months thereafter in manner following: (a) An entry of record that defendant appeals from the judgment with or without suspension of judgment, as he may elect, to be taken at the time of judgment rendered; or, (b) The filing of a written statement signed by the defendant or his attorney that the defendant appeals from the judgment, the statement to be filed within six months; provided, however, that the trial court shall retain jurisdiction of the cause for the purpose of hearing and determining a motion for a new trial, seasonably made, and any appeal from a judgment of conviction shall also raise the question of the correctness of the court's ruling on a motion for a new trial made within the time allowed, and in the manner prescribed by law.'

From the record it appears to us that appellant first elected to proceed in accordance with (a) above, and having so elected must be bound thereby unless some other date is appropriate for the computation of the sixty day period, because an appeal in a criminal case is deemed perfected if the defendant upon the rendition of a judgment expresses a desire to appeal (Relf v. State, 267 Ala. 3, 99 So.2d 216; McDaniel v. State, 39 Ala.App. 157, 96 So.2d 319; Campbell v. State, 182 Ala. 18, 62 So. 57; Sherman v. State, 15 Ala.App. 175, 72 So. 755; Ex...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Bell v. State of Alabama, 23104.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • November 1, 1966
    ...meticulous observance of procedural niceties (including time limits) in the taking of appeals is well demonstrated in Albert v. State, 274 Ala. 579, 150 So.2d 198 (1962), and Relf v. State, 267 Ala. 3, 99 So.2d 216 (Ala.1957).4 The only remedy to which strict time limits are inapplicable is......
  • Hairston v. State of Alabama, 71-2918 Summary Calendar.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • July 27, 1972
    ...meticulous observance of procedural niceties (including time limits) in the taking of appeals is well demonstrated in Albert v. State, 274 Ala. 579, 150 So.2d 198 (1962), and Relf v. State, 267 Ala. 3, 99 So.2d 216 (Ala.1957). * * * Thus, it is apparent that once the six month time limit fo......
  • Goolsby v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • December 19, 1978
    ...to appeal. McDaniel v. State, 39 Ala.App. 157, 96 So.2d 319 (1957); Ex parte Loyd, 275 Ala. 416, 155 So.2d 519 (1963); Albert v. State, 274 Ala. 579, 150 So.2d 198 (1962). There is not here involved the matter of any "out-of-time appeal". Messelt v. State, 351 So.2d 627 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977); ......
  • Shelby County Commission v. Smith
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • May 25, 1979
    ... ... increase their salaries to correspond with those of state troopers. The Circuit court granted the deputies' ... by several local acts passed in 1971, 1973, and 1976, 1 stating that salaries of specific sheriff's employees ... also asserts that the legislative scheme violates §§ 45 and 106 of the Alabama Constitution. Section 45 requires ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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