Wright v. State
| Decision Date | 22 June 1894 |
| Citation | 15 So. 506,103 Ala. 95 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Parties | WRIGHT v. STATE. |
Appeal from circuit court, Perry county; John Moore, Judge.
Goliath Wright was convicted of a crime and appealed. The state moves to dismiss the appeal. Motion granted.
W. F Hogue, for appellant.
Wm. L Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
This cause was submitted on a motion by the attorney general, to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the judgment rendered will not support the appeal.
The only entry purporting to be a judgment contained in the record in this case is as follows: It requires neither argument nor citation of authorities to show that this statement is wholly inoperative as a judgment. It appears to be no more than a mere repetition of the entries by the court upon a trial docket,-data for the judgment. In Speed v. Cocke, 57 Ala. 209, it is said: "The judgment, decree, or order of any court, to be operative must be certain and complete in itself, without reference to anything else by which to ascertain its meaning." Every verdict of a jury should be followed by a judgment of the court. The usual form observed, after the verdict, is "It is therefore considered and adjudged that the defendant is guilty as charged in the indictment" (or not guilty, according to the verdict). We would not be understood as declaring that it is necessary to observe the form given, but there must be some words to show that there has been a judgment upon the verdict. Where there is a confession of judgment for the fine, or fine and cost, it is equally imperative that a judgment be rendered upon the confession. If the conviction be for a felony, after the defendant has been adjudged guilty, as indicated above, the sentence of the law must be pronounced. This may be done at the time of the rendition of the verdict, after judgment upon verdict, or may be continued to any suitable time during the term. The sentence can be pronounced only in open court, with the defendant present, and should be preceded by inquiring of the defendant if he has anything to say why the sentence of the law should not be pronounced. The sentence is not the act of the court. It is the judgment of the law, pronounced by the court;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Alcantara
...345 (1878) ("[T]he record also shows that the presiding justice in open court sentenced the prisoner as follows...."); Wright v. State, 103 Ala. 95, 15 So. 506, 507 (1894) ("The sentence can be pronounced only in open court, with the defendant present, and should be preceded by enquiring of......
-
United States v. Folse
...record also shows that the presiding justice in open court sentenced the prisoner as follows . . . ."); Wright v. State, . . . 15 So. 506, 507 (1894)("The sentence can be pronounced only in open court, with the defendant present, and should be preceded by enquiring of the defendant if he ha......
-
Billingsley v. State, 7 Div. 710
...follow any specific pattern "but there must be some words to show that there has been a judgment upon the verdict." Wright v. State, 103 Ala. 95, 96, 15 So. 506, 507 (1893). While the "judgment entry in all criminal cases where there is conviction should recite in express words that the def......
-
Hardaman v. State
... ... While ... this judgment entry is lacking in recitals evincing a solemn ... adjudication of the court on the verdict of the jury, and a ... pronouncement of the sentence of the law as a punishment for ... the offense, and is therefore erroneous (Gray v ... State, 55 Ala. 86; Wright v. State, 103 Ala ... 95, 15 So. 506), still it clearly appears that this entry was ... intended to record such adjudication, and is sufficient to ... support an appeal. Ex parte Roberson, 123 Ala. 103, 26 So ... 645, 82 Am.St.Rep. 107; Gray v. State, supra ... [81 So. 452.] ... ...