Lampley v. State

Citation6 Ala.App. 23,60 So. 415
PartiesLAMPLEY v. STATE.
Decision Date19 June 1912
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

Rehearing Denied Dec. 17, 1912.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dale County; M. Sollie, Judge.

Dave Lampley was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law and he appeals. Appeal dismissed.

J. E. Z. Riley, of Ozark, for appellant.

R. C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W. L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DE GRAFFENRIED, J.

1. The defendant was tried and convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, in the circuit court of Dale county, on April 21, 1911, and on that day gave notice of an appeal to this court. His sentence was thereupon suspended by the trial court pending the appeal, and so far as the record discloses the defendant, since that time, has been out of the custody of the sheriff on bond. The bill of exceptions in the case was signed by the presiding judge on the 15th day of July, 1911, and no explanation is given of the defendant's failure to have his transcript filed in this court within the time provided by law and the rules of this court. The record in this case was filed in this court on April 4, 1912, and on the same day seven other records from Dale county in practically the same condition, some of them presenting meritorious questions and others not, were filed in this court.

Parties to appeals, even in criminal cases, are expected to see to it--in fact, are required to see to it--that their appeals are perfected with reasonable dispatch. The law commands the clerk of a nisi prius court from which an appeal in a criminal case is taken to the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals to make out a full and accurate transcript of the record and transmit it to the clerk of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals within twenty days thereafter. If time is required for signing a bill of exceptions, such transcript must be made out and forwarded within twenty days from the signing of the bill of exceptions, or, if such bill is not signed and filed, such transcript must be made out and forwarded within twenty days after the expiration of the time for signing and filing the same. Code 1907, § 6255.

The above section of the Code was placed upon our statute books for a wise and beneficent purpose. Its nonobservance brings about unnecessary and unseemly delay in the administration of the law and frequently results in the miscarriage of justice. Its provisions are mandatory; for when the law says that a certain duty must be performed it does not mean that it may or may not be performed. The clerks of trial courts should therefore carry out the provisions of the above statute and thus prevent one of the serious causes of delay in the matter of appeals in criminal cases.

2. In this case the Attorney General has...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Rivers v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 1 Junio 1915
    ... ... Collier v. Falk, 66 Ala. 223; Norman v ... Burns, 67 Ala. 248; Henley v. Chabert (Sup.) 65 ... A rule ... of court that the court itself does not enforce, but leaves ... compliance with it optional, ceases to be a rule. Lampley ... v. State, 6 Ala.App. 26, 60 So. 415; Powell v ... State, 5 Ala.App. 153, 59 So. 328; Thomas v ... Speese, 14 Ariz. 556, 132 P. 1139. And it might be added ... that a court that refuses ... [69 So. 390] ... to be bound by its own rules may expect others to disregard ... ...
  • Strickland v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 28 Marzo 1974
    ...complied with, and his appeal perfected in accord with rules of the court. Powell v. State, 5 Ala.App. 150, 59 So. 328; Lampley v. State, 6 Ala.App. 23, 60 So. 415; Weldon v. State, 21 Ala.App. 357, 108 So. 270, on rehearing. In the Lampley case, supra, this court said [6 Ala.App. 23, 60 So......
  • Chandler v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 8 Abril 1915
    ...dismissed on timely motion for failure to comply with the rules of practice. Powell v. State, 5 Ala.App. 150, 59 So. 328; Lampley v. State, 6 Ala.App. 26, 60 So. 415; Thomas v. Speese, 14 Ariz. 556, 132 P. Frierson v. Haley, 1 Ala.App. 576, 55 So. 429; 2 Cyc. 1028. However, if the case is s......
  • Williams v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 28 Noviembre 1912
    ... ... The ... motion to dismiss the appeal because of this unwarranted ... delay in filing the transcript must prevail. Code 1907, §§ ... 2870, 6255; Rule 41, Court of Appeals, 2 Ala. App. vi, 56 ... South. vi; Powell v. State, 59 So. 328; Lampley ... v. State, 60 So. 415; So. Ry. Co. v. Abraham ... Bros., 161 Ala. 317, 49 So. 801; Porter v ... Martin, 139 Ala. 318, 35 So. 1006; Winthrow & Gordon ... v. Woodward Iron Co., 81 Ala. 100, 2 So. 92; Sears ... v. Kirksey, 81 Ala. 98, 2 So. 90 ... Appeal ... ...
  • 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