Case ID: ala-app_11/html/0305-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BROWN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Franklin v. The State.
    
      Assault With a Weapon.
    
    (Decided December 15, 1914.
    66 South. 875.)
    1. Judgment; Sufficiency. — The judgment based upon a finding of the jury and so pronounced by the court sentencing defendant to hard labor in default of payment of fine and costs, and also to hard labor as a punishment, is sufficient.
    2. Appeal and Error; Revieio; Record. — Where there is no bill of exceptions and the indictment, judgment and sentence are regular, there is nothing presented for review.
    Appeal from Elmore Circuit Court.
    Heard before Hon. W. W. Pearson.
    Morris Franklin was convicted of an assault with a ' weapon and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    H. J. Lancaster, for appellant. No brief reached the Reporter.
    R. C. Briokell, Attorney General, and T. H. Seat, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
    The indictment, judgment and sentence were regular, and sufficient. — Smith v. State, 4 Ala. App. 212. There is no bill of exceptions and nothing to be reviewed.
   BROWN, J.

At the March term, 1913, of the circuit court of Elmore county, the appellant was indicted for an assault with intent to murder, and at the March term, 1914, he was tried and convicted of an assault with a weapon, and ‘a fine of $250 was assessed against him by the jury.

Immediately following the recital of the verdict of the jury in the judgment entry is the judgment of sentence pronounced by the court, showing that, upon the failure of the defendant to pay or to secure the fine and costs, he was sentenced to hard labor for the county for a term of 90 days for the payment of the fine and 140 days for the costs of the prosecution; and the court, as an additional punishment for the offense, imposed an additional sentence of 3 months’ hard labor for the county. This judgment was sufficient, as has been repeatedly ruled by the Supreme Court and this court. —Roberson v. State, 123 Ala. 57, 26 South. 645; Ex parte Roberson, 123 Ala. 103, 26 South. 645, 82 Am. St. Rep. 107; Smith v. State, 4 Ala. App. 212, 58 South. 117; Sanfield v. State, 3 Ala. App. 58, 57 South. 402.

The indictment, judgment, and sentence of the court being in all things regular, and there being no bill of exceptions, there is nothing else to be reviewed. There being no' error in the record, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.