Oliver v. State, 7 Div. 909.
| Decision Date | 01 March 1932 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 909. |
| Citation | 140 So. 180,25 Ala.App. 34 |
| Parties | OLIVER v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; O. A. Steele, Judge.
Dan Oliver was convicted of unlawfully possessing a still, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was convicted on a charge of unlawfully possessing a still, which under our law is a felony. Upon a return of the jury finding the defendant guilty under the second count of the indictment which charged the unlawful possession of a still, the following appears in the minute entry of the court:
The appellate courts of this state have been extremely liberal in upholding informal judgments of nisi prius courts, as was pointed out in this court in Cockrum v. State, 17 Ala. App. 30, 81 So. 366. It has also been held that where the attempted judgment was error, but clearly appears to be intended as an adjudication, such entry will support an appeal. Hardaman v. State, 17 Ala. App. 49, 81 So 449.
There are still, however, certain formalities required in final judgments in criminal cases which are still required to be complied with and when omitted calls for either a reversal of the cause or a remandment for sentence.
Where the judgment of conviction is erroneous and not sufficient to sustain the sentence, the cause must be reversed. If the error is in the sentence alone, the judgment of conviction may be affirmed and the cause remanded for proper sentence. Hardaman's Case, supra; Cockrum v. State, 17 Ala. App. 30, 81 So. 366; McMahan v. State, 21 Ala App. 522, 109 So. 553.
One of the requirements still obtaining and necessary to a valid judgment is that there must be a solemn adjudication of guilt. In this connection we call especial attention to the opinion in McMahan's Case, 21 Ala. App. 522, 109 So. 553, wherein is quoted a part of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Driggers v. State, 123 Ala. 46, 26 So. 512; Pearson v. State, 148 Ala. 670, 41 So. 733. Another requirement is that in all felony cases the defendant must be present in court at the time of sentence and must be asked if he has anything to say why the sentence of the law should not be pronounced upon him, and to constitute a valid judgment these facts must appear in the minute entry of the judgment. Coleman v. State, 20 Ala. App. 120, 101 So. 81; Shepard v. State, 20 Ala. App. 627, 104 So. 674; Wells v. State, 147 Ala. 140, 41 So. 630; Wells v. State, 19 Ala. App. 403, 97 So. 681.
The judgment is erroneous, in that there is no formal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dement v. Summer
... ... 667, 153 So. 382; ... Justice v. State, 170 Miss. 96, 154 So 265; ... Universal Truck Loading ... 376, 124 So. 356; Brush v ... Laurendine, 168 Miss. 7, 150 So. 818 ... The ... testimony clearly ... 871; Miss. Cent. v. Lott, 80 So. 279; ... Oliver Bus Lines v. Skaggs, 164 So. 10; Southern ... Ry. Co. v ... ...
-
Banks v. State
...v. State, 531 So.2d 35, 36 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). See also Ebens v. State, 518 So.2d 1264, 1269 (Ala.Crim.App.1986); Oliver v. State, 25 Ala.App. 34, 34, 140 So. 180, 181 (1932) (wherein the court noted that "to constitute a valid judgment[, the fact that the defendant was asked if he had any......
-
Couch v. United States
...People v. Nesce, supra. Some jurisdictions held that allocution was required even in non-capital felony cases. E. g., Oliver v. State, 25 Ala.App. 34, 140 So. 180; Cole v. State, 10 Ark. 4 This is so although it also appears there was another ground for reversal, that the docket did not sho......
-
Thompson v. State, CR–10–0379.
...v. State, 531 So.2d 35, 36 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). See also Ebens v. State, 518 So.2d 1264, 1269 (Ala.Crim.App.1986); Oliver v. State, 25 Ala.App. 34, 34, 140 So. 180, 181 (1932) (wherein the court noted that ‘to constitute a valid judgment[, the fact that the defendant was asked if he had any......