Smith v. State
Decision Date | 19 April 1977 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 393 |
Citation | 346 So.2d 382 |
Parties | Gary David SMITH v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Robbery; sentence: ten years imprisonment.
After our remandment to the trial court with directions to either furnish appellant with an adequate transcript for an appeal or grant him a new trial, we now have the case back on the trial court's answer to the remandment. Appellant still contends that an accurate transcript of the evidence has not been furnished.
The trial court held a hearing on December 15, 1976, to determine the accuracy of the court reporter's transcript of the evidence and to make additions or corrections thereto.
Mary E. Brandon testified that she was a private stenographer who sometimes typed transcripts on a fee basis for the court reporter from his recorded dictation. She had typed pages 1 through 101 and turned them over to Mary Lambert. The evidence developed the fact that Paul Williams, the official court reporter, was frequently intoxicated and was extremely derelict in his duties. Mary Lambert was another court reporter in the circuit, and she proofread the part typed by Mary Brandon and then finished typing the remainder of the evidence. She reviewed with Williams any errors she detected. On one instance, where a word was missing, Williams told her, "Oh, hell, just put something in there."
As inexcusable as the conduct of Williams was, and as lax as the trial court's prior supervision over him had been, the trial court has now made a diligent effort to secure a transcript of the evidence of sufficient accuracy to guarantee adequate appellate review to the appellant.
Where, due to no fault on the part of an indigent appellant, the court reporter refuses or fails to provide a transcript of the evidence, there is, and has been, a procedure to follow in order to obtain appellate review. In cases appealed prior to December 1, 1975, Title 7, § 827(3), Code of Alabama 1940, Recompiled 1958, provides in pertinent part:
"
In cases appealed on or after December 1, 1975, the new Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure apply. Rule 10(f), A.R.A.P. is as follows:
We have reviewed the supplemental transcript of the hearing on the correctness vel non of the transcript of the evidence. The trial court made a number of corrections and certified the record to us as being correct and accurate. The case is not complicated, and the testimony is simple. The issues are neither technical nor complex. We hold that the procedure employed by the trial court in response to our remandment complies with the requirements of both Title 7, § 827(3) and Rule 10(f), supra. We, therefore, accept the trial court's corrections of the record and its certification thereof.
The evidence clearly establishes that the appellant, on the evening of December 20, 1974, went to the Dutch Village Apartments in Anniston. He knocked on several doors and asked tenants for the location of the apartment of Linda Loveless. Finally he knocked on the door of the prosecutrix and made the same inquiry of her. When she unlatched the door and stepped out to give directions, the appellant put a gun in her face and pushed her back into the apartment. He then beat her, tore her clothes off, raped her and took four one dollar bills and some change from her purse. He left the prosecutrix and went to the apartment of Linda Loveless and had her drive him to a truck stop in another part of town. The prosecutrix made prompt complaint to the police and went to a local hospital. Appellant was arrested the next day.
There is no question concerning the identity of the appellant as the robber. The State made out a prima facie case of robbery which strongly supports the verdict of the jury.
Appellant contends that a statement he gave to officers should not have been admitted into evidence as it was not voluntary. Appellant's statement, which not totally inculpatory, was in pertinent part as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morrison v. State
...this court is convinced that the conclusion reached by the trial judge was palpably contrary to the weight of the evidence. Smith v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 346 So.2d 382. "In the instant case, we find that the ruling of the trial judge was supported by substantial evidence. The additional oral......
-
Ladd v. State
...346 So.2d 463, reversed Ala., 346 So.2d 464 (1976), after remand, Ala.Cr.App., 346 So.2d 465 (1976), appeal after remand, Ala.Cr.App., 346 So.2d 382, cert. denied, Ala., 346 So.2d 385 (1977); Pope v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 345 So.2d 1381 (1975), reversed, Ala., 345 So.2d 1385, on remand, Ala.C......
-
Morrison v. State
...this court is convinced that the conclusion reached by the trial judge was palpably contrary to the weight of the evidence. Smith v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 346 So.2d 382. In the instant case, we find that the ruling of the trial judge was supported by substantial evidence. The additional oral ......
-
Ex parte Singleton
...be disturbed on appeal unless it is evident that the determination was palpably contrary to the weight of the evidence. Smith v. State, 346 So.2d 382 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 346 So.2d 385 (Ala.1977); Balentine v. State, 339 So.2d 1063 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 1070 (Ala.19......