Pirkle v. State, 6 Div. 83.
Decision Date | 27 June 1944 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 83. |
Citation | 31 Ala.App. 464,18 So.2d 694 |
Parties | PIRKLE v STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Harold Price, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Wm N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and Bernard F. Sykes, Asst Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the offense of robbery, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of twenty years. Code 1940, Tit. 14, Sec. 415.
The appeal is on the record proper, without bill of exceptions--or, the case being tried since the effective date of the act of the Legislature approved July 12, 1943 (said effective date being September 1st 1943), found in General Acts of Alabama Regular Session 1943 and Special Session 1942 p. 423, also codified as Secs. 827(1) et seq. of the 1943 Cumulative Pocket Part of the Code of 1940, Tit. 7, without whatever may be designated as the substitute for the "bill of exceptions" as we formerly knew it.
The record seems regular in all respects; the indictment arraignment, trial, conviction and sentence presenting nothing calling for comment.
It does appear that upon the day set for the trial of the case the Attorney who had been appointed to represent appellant, and who was representing him, was instrumental in causing the minute entry which we quote to state the facts, viz.:
On December 8, 1943, appellant was duly tried, and convicted.
Upon this appeal we can see nothing worthy of mention unless it be the action of the trial court in overruling appellant's motion described in the minute entry we have quoted above. Out of deference...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Magee v. State
...witnesses, that we would expect that the state would admit certain portions of that showing made by the Defendant. Under Pirkle v. State, 31 Ala.App. 464, 18 So.2d 694, a deposition on written interrogatories (Code 1940, T. 15, § 301) was the exclusive mode for a defendant in a criminal cau......
-
State ex rel. Gladden v. Lonergan
...of compulsory process. Other courts have reached a contrary conclusion: Tiner v. State, 110 Ark. 251, 161 S.W. 195; Pirkle v. State, 31 Ala.App. 464, 18 So.2d 694. The California cases are cited as support for the attorney general's position; see, Willard v. Superior Court, 82 Cal. 456, 22 ......