Thames v. State

Decision Date02 February 1915
Docket Number339
Citation12 Ala.App. 307,68 So. 474
PartiesTHAMES v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

Rehearing Denied April 6, 1915

Appeal from City Court of Andalusia; Ed T. Albritton, Judge.

Petition by Joe F. Thames for discharge on habeas corpus. Petition denied, and he appeals. Affirmed, and petitioner remanded to custody.

J.A Carnley, of Elba, for appellant.

W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., and W.H. Mitchell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

THOMAS J.

The appellant prosecutes this appeal from the order of the judge of the lower court, denying him, as petitioner, a discharge on habeas corpus from confinement by the Horseshoe Lumber Company (the hirers of the county convicts) at hard labor for the county under sentence from the circuit court of the county on conviction for crime. He predicates his contention that he is illegally restrained and is entitled to a discharge upon two propositions, to wit First, that the supposed judgment of conviction under which he is held is not in fact a judgment, and consequently furnishes no authority for his detention; second, that the contract between the county and the Horseshoe Lumber Company, whereby the latter undertook to hire from the former the county convicts, is void, and that therefore the county was without warrant in law for turning petitioner over to said company for hard labor and confinement, even if a valid judgment of conviction had been rendered against him in the first instance.

The basis for the first contention--that is, that there was no judgment authorizing the detention--was the failure of the trial court, upon the return by the jury of a verdict of guilty against appellant of the crime for which he was sentenced, to enter up a formal adjudication of guilt. This is not necessary when there is, as here, a sentence in compliance with the verdict of guilty, since from the sentence a judgment of guilt or conviction is implied. Driggers v. State, 123 Ala. 46, 26 So. 512; Shirley v. State, 144 Ala. 35, 40 So. 269; Stanfield v. State, 3 Ala.App. 54, 57 So. 402; Walker v. State, 67 So. 719; Palmer v. State, 168 Ala. 126, 53 So. 283, and cases cited.

The second contention--that is, that the contract of hire between the county and the Horseshoe Lumber Company under which appellant is held is void--is founded upon the fact that the contract was authorized at a special, and not at a regular session of the commissioners' court of the county. In...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Tyson v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • February 4, 2000
    ...Higginbotham v. State, 20 Ala. App. 159, 101 So. 166 (1924); Walker v. State, 12 Ala.App. 229, 67 So. 719 (1915); Thames v. State, 12 Ala.App. 307, 68 So. 474 (1915); Stanfield v. State, 3 Ala.App. 54, 57 So. 402 Moreover, if any error did occur in the proof of the convictions for attempted......
  • Ex Parte Eason
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • November 18, 2005
    ...is in compliance with a verdict of guilty, the reasoning being that a judgment of guilt is implied from the sentence. Thames v. State, 12 Ala. App. 307, 68 So. 474 (1915); Shirley v. State, 144 Ala. 35, 40 So. 269 (1906); Driggers v. State, 123 Ala. 46, 26 So. 512 (1898). A formal adjudicat......
  • Milam v. State, 7 Div. 797.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • June 9, 1931
    ... ... be implied. This has been expressly held innumerable times by ... this court and the Supreme Court. Only a few of these cases ... will be here cited. Ex parte Robertson, 123 Ala. 103, 26 So ... 645, 82 Am. St. Rep. 107; Wilkinson v. State, 106 ... Ala. 23, 28, 17 So. 458; Thames v. State, 12 Ala ... App. 307, 68 So. 474; Carmichael v. State, 213 Ala ... 264, 104 So. 638; Ex parte State (Hardeman v ... State), 202 Ala. 694, 81 So. 656; Talbert v ... State, 140 Ala. 96, 37 So. 78, and cases cited ... There ... is no analogy in the judgment of conviction ... ...
  • Walker v. State (Ex parte Walker)
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 17, 2014
    ...is in compliance with a verdict of guilty, the reasoning being that a judgment of guilt is implied from the sentence. Thames v. State, 12 Ala.App. 307, 68 So. 474 (1915) ; Shirley v. State, 144 Ala. 35, 40 So. 269 (1906) ; Driggers v. State, 123 Ala. 46, 26 So. 512 (1898).’ ”929 So.2d at 99......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT