Ex parte Busby, 6 Div. 16
| Decision Date | 29 August 1963 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 16 |
| Citation | 156 So.2d 158,275 Ala. 472 |
| Parties | Ex parte David BUSBY. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
David Busby pro se.
Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and John G. Bookout, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
A petition for Writ of Error was filed by appellant in this Court on July 17, 1963. No transcript of the proceedings held below has been filed. The State has filed a motion to dismiss.
Without conceding that the writ of error is the proper method to secure appellate review of the petitioner's cause (Writ of Error Coram Nobis) the fact remains that the writ must be denied for failure to file the transcript of record of the proceedings held in the lower court. We cannot be put to guesswork in determining whether error has been committed below.
The writ of error can be granted only on some error of law apparent on the transcript of record. § 383, Tit. 15, Code of Ala. 1940, as amended. The office of such writ of error, which is available in criminal cases only, is to secure a revision of the record only by the appellate court. Seitz v. State, 19 Ala.App. 498, 98 So. 321.
Not having a transcript of record before us, it necessarily results that the petition for writ of error must be dismissed, and the writ denied.
Motion granted, writ denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Salter
...be used to review only the record proper and not the transcript of evidence. Second, the State argues that according to Ex parte Busby, 275 Ala. 472, 156 So.2d 158 (1963), Salter's petition is due to be denied because he did not file a separate record, suggesting that this court may not tak......
-
Mills v. State, 6 Div. 169
...for writ of error does not lie.--Tit. 15, § § 380(14)-380(25), Code of Ala., as recompiled in 1958, as amended 1963; Ex Parte Busby, 275 Ala. 472, 156 So.2d 158. But if the remedy here pursued were appropriate, the petition would still be The State's motion shows that all the grounds contai......
- Bright v. Bright, 6 Div. 996