Ramey v. State
| Decision Date | 16 December 1913 |
| Citation | 9 Ala.App. 51,64 So. 168 |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
| Parties | RAMEY v. STATE. |
Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; S.E. Greene, Judge.
Travis Milton Ramey was convicted of aiding a prisoner to escape and appeals. Affirmed.
The indictment contained three counts, as follows: "Omitting formal charging part, Travis Milton Ramey did convey into the county jail of Jefferson county, Ala., saws, things useful to aid a prisoner to escape therefrom, with intent to facilitate the escape of Will Nabors, a prisoner lawfully confined therein under a charge for the criminal offense of murder and William Mosely Bailey, a prisoner lawfully confined therein, under a conviction in the Criminal Court of Jefferson County, Ala., of a felony [naming it]." The second count omitted the name of William Mosely Bailey, and was otherwise the same as the first; the third count omitted the name of Will Nabors, and otherwise was the same as the first count.
Travis Milton Ramey, of Birmingham, for appellant.
R.C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W.L. Martin Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
It is shown by a certificate of the trial judge appended to the bill of exceptions sought to be established on this appeal that the bill was first presented to the judge on the 21st day of June, 1913, and was "refused because not presented within the time required by law." It is conceded that June 21st is the true date of presentation. The judgment entry set out in the transcript shows that the defendant was tried and convicted, and a judgment of guilty entered and a fine of $50 assessed against him on the 14th day of February, 1913. From this judgment of conviction of the offense charged, based on and following the verdict of the jury, and fixing the fine in the amount of $50 as assessed by the jury, an appeal would lie, and the time within which a bill of exceptions could have been presented to bring the presentation within the time required by law must be computed from the date of this judgment of conviction rendered on the 14th day of February, 1913; and, the bill not having been presented within the 90 days from the date on which judgment was entered, as provided by the statute (Code, § 3019), the appellant's motion to establish a bill of exceptions must fail.
It appears from the judgment entry that the defendant confessed judgment for the fine and costs on February 22, 1913, and that the court suspended sentence pending an appeal on the 24th day of March, 1913. It is variously insisted that the bill of exceptions was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arnold v. State
...Ala. 409, 410-11 (1870); Stout v. State, 547 So.2d 894, 899 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), affirmed, 547 So.2d 901 (Ala.1989); Ramey v. State, 9 Ala.App. 51, 54, 64 So. 168, 169 (1913).2 The appellant makes much of the fact that there was a discrepancy in the officers' descriptions of his movement alon......
-
Harper v. State
...presented is the judgment from which an appeal is authorized. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Ashley, 160 Ala. 582, 49 So. 388; Rainey v. State, 9 Ala.App. 51, 64 So. 168. The in this case was presented on the 92d day after entry of the judgment of conviction, and the motion of the Attorney Gener......
-
Peoples v. State
... ... date upon which the judgment in this case was rendered and ... The ... bill of exceptions not having been presented within 90 days ... from the day on which the judgment was entered, as the law ... requires, we are without authority to consider same. Code ... 1907, § 3019; Ramey v. State, 9 Ala. App. 51, 64 So ... 168; Boss Livery Co. v. Bailey, 17 Ala. App. 418, 85 ... So. 572; Smith v. State, 166 Ala. 24, 52 So. 396; ... Lewis v. State, 194 Ala. 1, 69 So. 913. The statute, ... supra, is mandatory, and the limitation of 90 days within ... which to present a bill of ... ...
-
Haynes v. State
...* * *' In three other cases, decided subsequent to the Hurst case, Marshall v. State, 120 Ala. 390, 25 So. 208 (1898), Ramey v. State, 9 Ala.App. 51, 64 So. 168 (1913), and Johnson v. State, 7 Ala.App. 88, 60 So. 973 (1913), indictments which were laid under this statute (Tit. 14, § 157) we......