Perry v. State
| Decision Date | 31 May 1911 |
| Citation | 55 So. 1035,1 Ala.App. 253 |
| Parties | PERRY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; William Jackson, Special Judge.
John Perry was convicted of violating a municipal ordinance, and he appeals. Affirmed.
R. C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction in proceedings instituted by the city of Birmingham for a violation of one of its municipal ordinances, and has been submitted without an assignment of errors. In this court nothing has been done by or on behalf of the appellant in support of his appeal.
The statute (Code, § 6264) dispenses with the necessity of an assignment of errors in a criminal case only. Williams v. State, 117 Ala. 199, 23 So. 42.
A prosecution for a violation of a municipal ordinance is statutory, and quasi criminal in its nature (Camden v. Bloch, 65 Ala. 236; Brown v. Mobile, 23 Ala. 722; Mobile v. Jones, 42 Ala. 630), and is not a criminal case covered by the provisions of chapter 162 of the Code relating to appeals and writs of error in such cases.
The provision of section 6 of the act establishing the police court of Birmingham (Acts 1894-95, p. 527) that, on an appeal to the criminal court of Jefferson county from a conviction in the police court on such a prosecution, the "defendant shall be tried in the said criminal court de novo, and without a jury, as though said prosecution had been begun in the criminal court," does not have the effect of changing the nature of the proceeding, or of bringing it within the benefit of the statute dispensing with the necessity of an assignment of errors in criminal cases.
Nor did the facts that there was a change in the style of the case when it reached the criminal court, and that it was there prosecuted by the county solicitor, make it a prosecution for a criminal offense against the state.
Because of the failure of the appellant to assign any error on the record, the judgment appealed from is affirmed; the record not disclosing that the trial court was without jurisdiction.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sparks v. State
...of error on the record is essential to present questions for review. Williams v. State, 117 Ala. 199, 23 So. 42; Perry v. State, 1 Ala.App. 253, 55 So. 1035; State v. Dodd, 9 Ala.App. 65, 64 So. 169; Stadt v. City of Birmingham, 14 Ala.App. 667, 70 So. 973; Dreyfus v. City of Montgomery, 4 ......
-
Casteel v. City of Decatur
... ... A city ... ordinance declaring "any person or persons committing an ... offense prohibited by the laws of the state of Alabama" ... guilty of a misdemeanor, and prescribing the punishment under ... the ordinance, applies to offenses against the state law in ... Section 3258 of the Code, requiring ... the court to review the record without assignments of error, ... does not apply. Perry v. State, 1 Ala.App. 254, 55 ... So. 1035; Camden v. Bloch, 65 Ala. 236; ... Washington v. Tuscaloosa, 19 Ala.App. 228, 96 So ... 464; Brown v ... ...
-
Hymes v. State
... ... civil cause. Errors not assigned, apparent on the record, in ... civil causes, will not be considered by this court; they will ... be considered waived, unless it be a want of jurisdiction of ... the subject-matter. Tuskaloosa Cotton Seed Oil Co. v ... Perry, 85 Ala. 158, headnote 1, 4 So. 635. No brief was ... filed by appellant when the cause was submitted, and no brief ... is in the record by appellant, as required by rule 13 (175 ... Ala. xviii, 61 South. vii) of this court. A brief should have ... been filed by the appellant when the cause was ... ...
-
Parks v. City of Montgomery
...filed in this court. Prosecutions for violations of municipal ordinances are statutory and quasi criminal in nature. Perry v. State, 1 Ala.App. 253, 55 So. 1035; Craig v. City of Birmingham, 14 Ala.App. 630, 71 So. 983; Childs v. City of Birmingham, 19 Ala.App. 71, 94 So. 790; Washington v.......