Mabry v. State
| Decision Date | 12 March 1959 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 408 |
| Citation | Mabry v. State, 110 So.2d 260, 268 Ala. 660 (Ala. 1959) |
| Parties | Jessie W. MABRY v. STATE of Alabama. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Griffin & Wilson, Birmingham, for petitioner.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and John F. Proctor, Asst. Atty. Gen., opposed.
The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the petition for certiorari because it was filed too late. The record shows that the defendant's application for rehearing was overruled by the Court of Appeals on February 10, 1959. The petition for writ of certiorari was not 'filed with the clerk of this court within fifteen days after the action of said court of appeals upon the said application for rehearing,' as required by Supreme Court Rules, rule 39, Code 1940, Tit. 7 Appendix.
The motion to dismiss the petition must be granted. Ex parte Taylor, 211 Ala. 282, 100 So. 331; Robinson v. Beale, 219 Ala. 154, 121 So. 428; Morgan Plan Co. v. Beverly, 255 Ala. 235, 51 So.2d 179.
Petition dismissed.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
15 cases
-
Johnson v. State
...397, 211 So.2d 877; Sanders v. State, 278 Ala. 453, 179 So.2d 35; Mabry v. State, 40 Ala.App. 129, 110 So.2d 250, cert. denied 268 Ala. 660, 110 So.2d 260; Thigpen v. State, 49 Ala.App. 233, 270 So.2d 666; Hurst v. State, 54 Ala.App. 254, 307 So.2d 62, cert. denied 293 Ala. 548, 307 So.2d 7......
-
Sanders v. State, 6 Div. 130
...for use in the preparation of his defense. See Mabry v. State, 40 Ala.App. 129, 110 So.2d 250, petition for cert. dismissed, 268 Ala. 660, 110 So.2d 260; McCullough v. State, 40 Ala.App. 309, 113 So.2d 905, cert. denied, 269 Ala. 698, 113 So.2d The 'Jencks decision' to which reference was m......
-
Jackson v. State
...perpetrated by all or less than all of the conspirators.' Mabry v. State, 40 Ala. App. 129, 110 So. 2d 250, cert. denied, 268 Ala. 660, 110 So. 2d 260 (1969). Thus a co-conspirator is equated to an aider and abettor which under the facts he often, but not necessarily, is. Properly, conspira......
-
Com. v. Hogan
...Mass.App.Ct.Adv.Sh. (1977) 1161, 1167.9 Contrast Mabry v. State, 40 Ala.App. 129, 134-135, 110 So.2d 250, cert. denied 268 Ala. 660, 110 So.2d 260 (1959), and State v. Bass, 255 N.C. 42, 51-52, 120 S.E.2d 580 (1961), where the intent to maim on the part of a passive accessory to an incident......
Get Started for Free