Esco v. State
| Decision Date | 27 August 1963 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 922 |
| Citation | 179 So.2d 766,43 Ala.App. 61 |
| Parties | Howard Edward ESCO v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Norman E. Moon, Birmingham, for appellant.
Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., Bernard F. Sykes, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Roy E. Hicks, Legal Research Aide, Montgomery, for the State.
Appellant stands convicted of a violation of Section 229 of Title 14, Code of Alabama of 1940. On original submission no brief was filed in defendant's behalf. We carefully reviewed the record, as is required in criminal cases, and finding no ruling of the court which merited discussion, the cause was affirmed without opinion.
On rehearing a brief has been filed. Counsel insists the statute under which defendant stands convicted is so vague and uncertain as to be violative of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
The Supreme Court has held the statute valid in Morris v. State, 144 Ala. 81, 39 So. 973.
Application for rehearing overruled.
Reversed and remanded on authority of Esco v. State, 179 So.2d 766.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Esco v. State
-
Tucker v. State
...as defined in Section 200, Title 14, Code of Alabama 1940.' (33 Ala.App., at page 121, 31 So.2d at page 591.)' See also Esco v. State, 43 Ala.App. 61, 179 So.2d 766. Since here the name of the alleged forged check, to-wit, Charles J. Cunningham, is one of the aliases contained in the indict......
- Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v. Huff