Cottingham v. State, 6 Div. 772

• Decision Date: 06 May 1975
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 772
• Citation: 329 So.2d 116,57 Ala.App. 427
• Parties: Dawson Ray COTTINGHAM v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 116

329 So.2d 116

57 Ala.App. 427

Dawson Ray COTTINGHAM v. STATE.

6 Div. 772.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 6, 1975.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 17, 1976.

Wilder & Nelson, Birmingham, for appellant.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., Montgomery, and David L. Weathers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Birmingham, for the State.

CATES, Presiding Judge.

Murder in the second degree: sentence, twenty years in the penitentiary.

Cottingham, according to the tendencies of the State's evidence, talked one Odum into killing Eugene Helms. The motive was money--Helms having recently sold a Cadillac. Odum was seen near Helms's home on the day he was killed. Odum sold a pistol which was proved as being Helms's.

The trial judge overruled a defense motion to exclude the State's evidence. The defendant, as is his right, did not testify.

He produced his mother and brother as alibi witnesses.

After sentencing on May 22, 1974, the trial judge appointed a different lawyer to prosecute the appeal. This attorney was seemingly never notified of his selection. The time for a new trial expired. Then on July 17, 1974, Cottingham's kin first told appellant's counsel of the appointment. In brief we are told that the only formal notice came from the clerk of this court, writing that the record on appeal had been filed here November 26, 1974.

But the only prejudice which we can envisage was in shutting off the making of a motion for new trial. Under Code 1940, T. 13, § 119, in Jefferson County, (as in other single county circuits), the movant must file and tell the judge within thirty days of judgment of his motion for a new trial, etc.

A lapsed, or dilatory, motion for new trial cannot be reviewed. Ex parte Byrd Contracting Co., 26 Ala.App. 171, 156 So. 579; Nickens v. State,31 Ala.App. 297, 15 So.2d 633. That is, time is of the essence of the right to a new trial.

A motion for new trial, however, is not a condition precedent to taking an appeal from a final judgment. Under Code 1940, T. 15, § 382 'the trial court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of granting a motion for a new trial; * * *.' If the motion is granted the appeal becomes moot. Blake v. State, 22 Ala.App. 394, 116 So. 302.

The presence of an attorney at trial will not permit the inference that an appellant has the services of that same attorney (or any other) on appeal. Therefore, if appellant is proven a pauper (at least until a statute or rule of court makes trial counsel appointment a continuing one) the trial court must make a separate appointment of appellate counsel. Martin v. State, 277 Ala. 153, 167 So.2d 912 ¹; compare ABA Standards Relating to Criminal Appeals, § 2.2(a) ².

The right now conferred (though not limited) by statute, to move for a new trial is a valuable one. We consider it of equal dignity to the statutory right to a struck jury. Hence, its preclusion would, on analogy, be the deprivation of a substantial right not affected by the harmless error principle. Southern Ry. Co. v. Milan, 240 Ala. 333, 199 So. 711.

We are affirming the judgment on the trial below based on the record before us. This action is taken under Code 1940, T. 15, § 389.

However, execution is to be stayed to allow appellant thirty days to file as though under § 119, supra, a motion for new trial.

We recognize this result as an exception. Exceptions test rules: here a constitutional right to counsel in the first appellate proceeding (Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811), compels us to allow a proceeding ordinarily not to be had. Lapsley v. Weaver, 44 Ala. 131; Anno. 139 A.L.R. 340, fn. 1.

If the motion for new trial is filed and denied, appellant may bring an independent appeal here--apart from this appeal. In such event the record on the instant appeal should not be duplicated since wee take judicial notice of our records. Of At all events appellant's counsel must advise this court of the proceeding during the ensuing thirty days, otherwise the certificate of affirmance will issue automatically. If the motion for new trial is filed and the hearing thereof is Duly continued by the circuit court, this court reserves the right of granting appropriate stays of execution.

course, if the motion is granted there would be a consequent venire facias de novo.

Affirmed: execution stayed for thirty days.

All the Judges concur.

ON REHEARING

This cause has been consolidated, i.e., the record originally submitted has been supplemented with a record resulting from a hearing in the circuit court on July 11, 1975, of appellant's motion for a new trial. This transcript did not get to us until January 30, 1976.

The hearing below centered on whether or not George Coleman, a witness for the State on the original trial, was of such mental incompetency that his testimony could not be believed. This question was presented only by an affidavit of Coleman himself in which he stated that he used chloral hydrate, and also by unexplained medical records of his ins-and-outs of hospitals in Jefferson County for various and sundry ailments, imaginary and otherwise. We find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in overruling the motion for a new trial since the matter raised therein was in pertinent part explored by cross examination at the original trial.

McElroy on Evidence (2...