Martin v. State
Decision Date | 04 October 1927 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 142 |
Citation | 113 So. 452,22 Ala.App. 191 |
Parties | MARTIN v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Russell County; J.S. Williams, Judge.
Motion of C.O. Martin, made at special term called and sitting on August 1, 1927, to allow the movant to file an application for rehearing of a judgment rendered June 30, 1927, affirming the judgment of the circuit court in the case of C.O Martin v. State (Ala.App.) 113 So. 602. Motion denied.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The judgment of affirmance in this case was rendered June 30 1927, being the last day of the regular term of this court. The clerk of this court failed to issue a certificate as required by section 10323, subds. 9 and 10 of the Code of 1923, as follows:
Upon discovery of the omission to issue the certificate and notice, supra, the clerk of this court did, on July 15, 1927, issue the notices required. The attorney of record calls the omission to the attention of the court and states in his place as an attorney of this court that he did not know of the decision affirming the case on June 30, 1927, until the receipt by him of the notice issued July 15, 1927, and that he and his client relied on the law requiring notice to be sent and that as a result his client is denied the right to file an application for rehearing within 15 days from the rendition of the judgment, as is provided by Supreme Court rule 38, it being required that such application should be filed within 15 days from the rendition of judgment.
Under the law the right of appellant to file an application for rehearing has passed. The duties placed upon the clerk by section 10323, subds. 9 and 10, supra, are purely ministerial and in no way affect the judgments of this court. The motion now being considered addresses itself purely to the conscience of the court in its desire to see that injustice is not done or injury sustained by an appellant for and on account of an omission of the clerk, which has come to be a part of the practice in this court and to be relied upon by attorneys in the management of their cases.
When we come to that question we are confronted with the universal rule that, after the final adjournment of this court, it ceases to have any power over its records, other than such as is incident to all courts of general jurisdiction, that of correcting clerical errors where the record affects matter upon which to base such correction. After its final adjournment its judgments are absolute and conclusive and the court has no power over them. Van Dyke v. State, 22 Ala. 57; Morrison et al. v. Formby, 191 Ala. 104, 67 So. 668.
In view of the sections of the Code, supra, its judgments could not be enforced until such notices are issued, but those notices are ministerial acts required of the clerk and do not affect the finality or validity of the judgments themselves.
The term of the Court of Appeals is fixed by section 10279 of the Code of 1923, to begin the first Monday in October and end June 30th of each year. The regular term of this court at which the judgment in the case of Martin v. State (4 Div. 142) 113 So. 602...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte James
...219, 220-21, 61 So.2d 808, 809 (1952), Wade v. State, 51 Ala.App. 441, 441-43, 286 So.2d 317, 318-19 (1973), Martin v. State, 22 Ala.App. 191, 192-93, 113 So. 452, 453 (1927). That term of court, mandated by § 12-2-8, Ala.Code 1975, and Internal Rule V.A., expired on June 30, Both deadlines......
-
Wade v. State
...Code 1940, T. 13, § 20. This latter section also confers authority on the court to 'adjourn from time to time.' Under Martin v. State, 22 Ala.App. 191, 113 So. 452, an adjournment under this section can have the effect of continuing the regular On June 29, 1973 the Court adopted the followi......
-
Davis v. State, 4 Div. 582.
...198 So. 153 29 Ala.App. 421 DAVIS ET AL. v. STATE. 4 Div. 582.Court of Appeals of AlabamaJune 4, 1940 ... Rehearing ... Denied June 25, 1940 ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court, Russell County; J. S. Williams, Judge ... Woodrow ... Davis and Raymond Martin were convicted of grand larceny, and ... they appeal ... Affirmed ... Certiorari ... denied by Supreme Court in Davis v. State, 198 So ... [198 So. 154] ... W. R ... Belcher and J. B. Hicks, both of Phenix City, for appellants ... Thos ... S ... ...
-
Hamm v. Harrigan
...power to alter its decree. Motion of appellant is stricken.' Morrison v. Formby, 191 Ala. 104, 109, 67 So. 668, 670. See Martin v. State, 22 Ala.App. 191, 113 So. 452, where the court observed, with respect to a judgment rendered at a prior '. . . we are driven to the conclusion that this c......