Nolly v. State, 6 Div. 893
| Decision Date | 10 January 1950 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 893 |
| Citation | 43 So.2d 841,35 Ala.App. 79 |
| Parties | NOLLY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Geo. S. Brown and Brown & Gordon, of Birmingham, for appellant.
A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Robt. Straub, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant below was convicted of larceny from the person. Title 14, Sec. 331, Code 1940.
The property alleged to have been stolen was a pistol of the value of $18.00.
It appears that the indictment was returned in January 1941 and the defendant was not arrested until November 1948. His trial followed in February 1949.
The accused moved the court to dismiss the prosecution any order his discharge, the contention being that, because of the delay from the date of the return of the indictment to the time of trial, the appellant was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial.
At the time the defendant was indicted in the case at bar, he was serving a sentence in the Federal penitentiary for another offense. He was not released from this imprisonment until June 1946.
On January 20, 1941, the sheriff's office in Bessemer, Alabama, mailed a letter to the United States Marshal in Birmingham, Alabama, in which the marshal was notified of the pendency of the case against the appellant in the State court and was requested: 'Notify us when he is to be released and we will send for him.'
The sheriff was not notified as he requested. The defendant was released and he returned to Jefferson County, Alabama and there remained until his arrest more than two years later.
It does not appear that the sheriff or anyone connected with his office had any knowledge of appellant's release from the Federal prison. Nor were they apprised that the defendant was in the county prior to the time he was taken in custody in November 1948.
Some of the authorities hold that a state may not deny an accused person a speedy trial because he is incarcerated in one of the state's penal institutions under a prior conviction and sentence in a court of that sovereign. This is not the case at bar. Obviously a very different situation is presented when it is shown that the delay of trial is occasioned by a confinement in the federal prison and that there is a liberation from that imprisonment without any knowledge of or notice to the state authorities.
In the case of Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 42 S.Ct. 309, 66 L.Ed. 607, 22 A.L.R. 879, it is clearly held that the surrender of a federal prisoner to a state court to be there tried on a state charge is within the discretion of the authorities of the federal government. See also Ex parte Schechtel, 103 Colo. 77, 82 P.2d 762, 118 A.L.R. 1032.
The delay of trial under the circumstances in this case cannot be made a successful basis for a claim that the accused has been denied the right to a speedy trial within the contemplation of Art. 1, Sec. 6 of the Constitution of Alabama, 1901.
The case of Young v. State, 131 Ala. 51, 31 So. 373, and In re Tate's Case, 76 Ala. 482, are neither analogous nor in any manner controlling.
Appellant's counsel insists in brief that the appellant was due the general affirmative charge. The insistence is based primarily on the position that the essential element of intent or 'animus furandi' is not established by the evidence and that the inferences therefrom are not of sufficient potency.
At the time of the alleged theft the appellant was confined in the city jail 'on a holdover for the F. B. I.' The prosecuting witness was a city officer and was charged with the duty of guarding city prisoners while they were at work. On the morning in question he went to the jail for the purpose of taking a prisoner out to work. According to the officer's testimony this occurred:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kirby v. State
...134 F.Supp. 872. See also Baker v. Marbury, 216 Md. 572, 574, 141 A.2d 523; Kyle v. United States, 9 Cir., 211 F.2d 912; Nolly v. State, 35 Ala.App. 79, 43 So.2d 841. If we assume again, as we did when he was here before, that the State of Maryland failed in a duty owed Kirby to urge the At......
-
State v. Larkin
...523, and see, State v. Kubus, 243 Minn. 379, 68 N.W.2d 217, certiorari denied, 349 U.S. 959, 75 S.Ct. 889, 99 L.Ed. 1282; Nolly v. State, Ala.App., 43 So.2d 841; People v. South, 122 Cal.App. 505, 10 P.2d 109; Perry v. Gwartney, 162 Kan. 607, 178 P.2d 185.5 Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254,......
-
Jordan v. State, 7 Div. 715
...to the parking lot of the jail (approximately three days). A case similar in this respect, and in other respects, is Nolly v. State, 35 Ala.App. 79, 43 So.2d 841 (1950), in which defendant while confined to a jail overpowered an officer, took the officer's gun, and "broke and ran out of the......
-
Accardo v. State
...to another jurisdiction. Perry v. Gwartney, 162 Kan. 607, 178 P.2d 185; Com. v. Domanski, 332 Mass. 66, 123 N.E.2d 368; Nolly v. State, 35 Ala.App. 79, 43 So.2d 841. Judge Fee of the Ninth Circuit, in Strand v. Schmittroth, 251 F.2d 590, 610, concludes a most erudite and comprehensive 'The ......