Upton v. State, 8 Div. 882
| Decision Date | 01 May 1951 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 882 |
| Citation | 36 Ala.App. 73,52 So.2d 397 |
| Parties | UPTON et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
No attorney for appellants.
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and M. Roland Nachman, Jr. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellants were convicted of petit larceny under an indictment charging that they feloniously took and carried away 300 pounds of cotton seed of the value of $10.00, the personal property of another.
Appellants were not represented by counsel in the court below, nor on this appeal. No objections were interposed to the introduction of testimony. The affirmative charge was not requested, neither was there a motion for a new trial.
In this state of the record nothing is presented for review by this court except the regularity of the proceedings. Dotson v. State, Ala.App., 43 So.2d 434; Lee v. State, Ala.App., 50 So.2d 456, 457.
The court committed error in sentencing each of the defendants to imprisonment in the penitentiary of the State of Alabama for a term of 12 months. Title 15, Section 325, Code 1940.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed. The cause is remanded for proper sentence. Lee v. State, supra; Green v. State, 31 Ala.App. 406, 18 So.2d 101, and cases there cited.
Affirmed, but remanded for proper sentence.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. City of Birmingham
... ... 36 Ala.App. 72 ... CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ... 6 Div. 156 ... Court of Appeals of Alabama ... May 1, 1951 ... Nix v. City of Andalusia, supra; Genie v. State, Ala., 39 So. 573; Taylor v. State, 114 Ala. 20, 21 So ... ...
-
Parker v. State, 6 Div. 638
...of the State's evidence is therefore not reviewable by us on appeal. Madison v. State, 32 Ala.App. 617, 28 So.2d 927; Upton v. State, 36 Ala.App. 73, 52 So.2d 397. We have found no errors infecting this record probably injurious to the appellant's substantial rights. This cause must perforc......