Peters v. State, 8 Div. 5.
Decision Date | 04 March 1941 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 5. |
Citation | 30 Ala.App. 77,200 So. 800 |
Parties | PETERS v. STATE |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; Albert Hooton, Judge.
Clarence Peters was convicted of forgery, and he appeals.
Affirmed; remanded for proper sentence.
The sentence of the court was "to imprisonment in the penitentiary of this State for a term of not less than ten years and not more than twelve years, ten years being the minimum and twelve years being maximum".
E. L. Roberts, of Gadsden, for appellant.
Thos. S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and Wm. H. Loeb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This case was tried, and judgment of conviction entered on April 3, 1940. The bill of exceptions was not presented before and until August 15, 1940, nothing intervening which had the effect of lengthening the time within which it might be presented.
This was not in accord with Code 1928, § 6433, and the Attorney General's motion to strike the bill of exceptions from the record may be, and is, hereby, granted.
Appellant was regularly indicted, tried, and convicted for and of the offense denounced by Code 1928, § 4121, forgery in the second degree. The punishment is prescribed by Code 1928, § 4129.
We find nothing wrong with the conviction of appellant; but the punishment imposed is not in accordance with the law.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed. But the cause is remanded to the court below for proper sentence. McGee v. State, 20 Ala.App. 221, 101 So. 321; McIntosh v. State, 234 Ala. 16, 173 So. 619.
Affirmed. Remanded for proper sentence.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McFerrin v. State, 6 Div. 213
...McIntosh v. State is cited in Champion v. State, 253 Ala. 436, 44 So.2d 622, Hanby v. State, 267 Ala. 69, 101 So.2d 562, Peters v. State, 30 Ala.App. 77, 200 So. 800. In Case No. 5360--B, charge of Resisting arrest, conviction and sentence accordingly, this case is The foregoing opinion was......
-
Peters v. State
...no reversible error appeared upon the trial in the court below and therefore duly affirmed said judgment of conviction on March 4, 1941. 200 So. 800. From that date, the defendant (petitioner here) was convict. This court found it necessary to remand the cause for the sole purpose of correc......
- Jackson v. State, 8 Div. 40.