Reeves v. State

• Decision Date: 22 June 1943
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 802.
• Citation: 16 So.2d 697,31 Ala.App. 226
• Parties: REEVES v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

16 So.2d 697

31 Ala.App. 226

REEVES v. STATE.

4 Div. 802.

Alabama Court of Appeals

June 22, 1943

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1943.

O S. Lewis, of Dothan, for appellant.

Wm N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and John J. Haynes, Asst Atty. Gen., for the State.

RICE Judge.

Petitioner, Tank Reeves, brings this appeal from an order of the Honorable D. C. Halstead as Judge of the 20th Judicial Circuit of Alabama denying his petition for the writ of habeas corpus and remanding him to the custody of the Sheriff of Houston County.

The facts are: Petitioner was regularly put on trial in the Circuit Court of Houston County under an indictment (omitting formal parts) in words and figures as follows, to-wit: "The Grand Jury of said County charge that, before the finding of this indictment Tank Reeves, whose name is to the Grand Jury otherwise unknown, did, in the nighttime, with intent to steal break into and enter an inhabited dwelling of C. M. Guillot, which was occupied by C. M. Guillot, a person lodged therein against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama."

During said trial the action indicated by the following order made by the trial judge was taken, to-wit: "February 19 1943-on this day came the Solicitor, who prosecutes for the State and also came the defendant, in his own proper person and with his attorney, and this being the day and date set for the trial of this cause, the parties proceeded to select a jury for the trial of this case, which said jury was duly sworn and impaneled to try this case, and, to the indictment as read to the jury, the defendant pleads not guilty, and, during the trial of the case, the Solicitor moves the court in open court, the defendant and his counsel being present, that the State be allowed to amend the indictment in this case so as to allege that Ruth Guillot was the person occupying and lodged in the dwelling house alleged in said indictment to have been burglarized by the defendant, and the defendant, by and through his attorney, having refused in open court before the court refused to consent to said amendment, and, it appearing to the satisfaction of the court from the evidence in this case that there is variance between the allegations of the indictment in this case and the proof offered or given in support thereof in that the indictment alleges that G. M. Guillot was the person who was occupying the dwelling house involved in this indictment and the person lodged in said dwelling at the time of the alleged burglary and the proof shows that Ruth Guillot was the person so occupying said dwelling and lodged therein at the time of said alleged burglary; and the defendant, having refused to consent to said amendment to said indictment, and the jury impaneled to try this case against the defendant, not having retired to reach a verdict in this case, on motion of the Solicitor, it is ordered by the court that this case is here nol prossed and the Sheriff is hereby ordered to take defendant into his custody and retain him to answer another indictment in this case and the Court orders another indictment to be preferred against the defendant, and the jury impaneled to try this case is discharged without a verdict,...