Woods v. State, CR-91-905
| Decision Date | 13 November 1992 |
| Docket Number | CR-91-905 |
| Citation | 609 So.2d 7 |
| Parties | Willie WOODS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Ray T. Kennington, Ariton, for appellant.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Francis Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Willie Woods, seeks to appeal his conviction for rape in the first degree, a violation of § 13A-6-61, Code of Alabama 1975, of a two-year-old female, and his resulting sentence of life imprisonment. The attorney general asks that this appeal be dismissed, pursuant to A.R.App.P. 2, because of the appellant's alleged failure to timely file notice of appeal.
A jury, in the appellant's absence, found the appellant guilty on January 26, 1989. He had failed to show up for the second and final day of trial. He was not sentenced until December 5, 1991, after he had been taken into custody on October 1, 1991. At sentencing, the trial court advised the appellant of his right to appeal and of the time within which the appeal must be filed. A motion for a new trial was filed on January 3, 1992, and was denied on January 16, 1992. The notice of appeal to this court by the trial court clerk shows that the appellant filed his notice of appeal on March 13, 1992--57 days after the denial of the appellant's motion for a new trial. (However, the appellant's notice of appeal is not included in the record.)
On June 2, 1992, the appellant filed with the trial court a motion for enlargement of time "in which to take an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals through the 13th day of March, 1992." The appellant asserted that, because he says he received no notice that the trial court had denied his motion for a new trial on January 16, he had determined that his motion had been deemed denied by operation of law on February 4, see A.R.Cr.P. 24.4; that his notice of appeal was filed within 42 days of the February 4 date; and that he did not discover that the motion had actually been denied on January 16 until he received the record. As the appellant also asserted, the case action summary fails to show that a copy of the trial court's ruling was mailed to the appellant's attorney. The trial court granted this motion of enlargement on June 3, 1992.
The attorney general's motion to dismiss this appeal is due to be granted upon the following principles.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooks v. State
...District Court could not confer to the court the authority to extend the 42-day period).' "606 So.2d at 172. See also Woods v. State, 609 So.2d 7, 8 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). "This Court created a narrow exception to the 42-day rule in Fountain v. State, 842 So.2d 719 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), aff'd ......
-
Loggins v. State, CR-01-1804.
...to the court the authority to extend the 42-day period).' "Symanowski v. State, 606 So.2d 171, 172 (Ala.Cr.App.1992)." Woods v. State, 609 So.2d 7, 8 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (first emphasis added). See Rule 2(b), Ala.R.App.P. ("In the interest of expediting decision or for other good cause show......
-
Brooks v. State
...District Court could not confer to the court the authority to extend the 42-day period)." 606 So.2d at 172. See also Woods v. State, 609 So.2d 7, 8 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). This Court created a narrow exception to the 42 day rule in Fountain v. State, 842 So.2d 719 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), aff'd in......
-
Fountain v. State
...to the court the authority to extend the 42-day period).' "Symanowski v. State, 606 So.2d 171, 172 (Ala.Cr.App.1992)." Woods v. State, 609 So.2d 7, 8 (Ala.Crim. App.1992). Because Fountain filed his notice of appeal after the 42-day period had expired, it was not timely. Furthermore, Alabam......