Scaife v. State, 4 Div. 427
| Decision Date | 31 August 1976 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 427 |
| Citation | 337 So.2d 146 |
| Parties | James SCAIFE, Jr. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
John B. Crawley, Troy, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Sarah M. Greenhaw, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant James Scaife, Jr., was convicted of forgery and sentenced to five years in the circuit court below in Pike County and appeals his case to this court, raising only one point contending that the trial court erred in not granting his motion to dismiss the indictment because a preliminary hearing had not been given Scaife prior to his indictment and trial.
According to the record, a complaint was made against Scaife charging him with forgery and a warrant for Scaife's arrest was issued by the Inferior Court of Pike County, and served on Scaife June 4, 1975. Scaife made bond on June 16, 1975. A preliminary hearing was never held by the Inferior Court of Pike County. Twenty-two days after Scaife's arrest, he was indicted for forgery by the ground jury of Pike County, on June 26, 1975, and was arraigned on July 8, 1975. On August 18, 1975, and again on August 21, 1975, Scaife moved to dismiss the indictment for the lack of a preliminary hearing being held and both times the court refused to grant Scaife's motion. Scaife was found guilty by a jury on September 9, 1975, and sentenced by the court to five years in the penitentiary on September 10, 1975.
As to the issue pertaining to a preliminary hearing, Mr. Robert Newman, Jr., Clerk of the Circuit Court and Inferior Court of Pike County, testified at a hearing on Scaife's motion to dismiss as follows:
It is clear that the State admitted that Scaife was not given a preliminary hearing. At the trial, Scaife contended that between his arrest and arraignment he was unable to employ an attorney and that Scaife thought he would receive a preliminary hearing without asking for it.
The law of Alabama has been enounced by this Court that a preliminary hearing is not necessary to satisfy the requisites of due process and the fact that there was no preliminary hearing would have no bearing on the validity of an indictment or subsequent proceedings. Bowman v. State, 44 Ala.App. 331, 208 So.2d 241; Queor v. State, 278 Ala. 10, 174 So.2d 687.
It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. State
...432, 178 So.2d 825 (1965), and that a preliminary hearing is not necessary to satisfy the requirements of due process. Scaife v. State, 337 So.2d 146 (Ala.Cr.App.1976); Trammell v. State, 43 Ala.App. 308, 189 So.2d 760, cert. stricken, 280 Ala. 31, 189 So.2d 763 (1966). We found that the ob......
-
Williams v. State
...was not entitled to a preliminary hearing as a matter of right. Ex parte Campbell, 278 Ala. 114, 176 So.2d 242 (1965); Scaife v. State, 337 So.2d 146 (Ala.Cr.App.1976). XVII The record shows two arraignments of the defendant with no explanation as to why this occurred. The defendant alleges......
-
Nelson v. State
...278 Ala. 432, 178 So.2d 825 (1965). A preliminary hearing is not necessary to satisfy the requirements of due process. Scaife v. State, 337 So.2d 146 (Ala.Cr.App.1976); Trammell v. State, 43 Ala.App. 308, 189 So.2d 760, cert. stricken, 280 Ala. 31, 189 So.2d 763 (1966). The defendant does n......
-
Cox v. State
...462 So.2d 1047 ... Anthony G. COX ... 7 Div". 314 ... Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama ... Jan. 8, 1985 ... \xC2" ... ...