Case ID: ala-app_21/html/0499-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "RICE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(109 So. 557)
    BEECHAM v. STATE.
    (7 Div. 211.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    June 29, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied Aug. 31, 19-26.)
    I. Criminal law <&wkey;1092(7).
    Under Code 1923, § 6433, bill of exceptions, not signed, by trial judge within 60 days from date of presentation, will be stricken on motion.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;l090(l4).
    In absfencé of bill of exceptions, Court of Appeals will not review action of trial court in refusing requested charges.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Cleburne County; R. B. Carr, Judge.
    Jess Beecham was convicted of distilling, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Hugh Walker, of Anniston, for appellant.
    In view of the decision, it is not necessary that brief on the merits be here set out.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Robt. G. Tate, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    The bill of exceptions, not having been signed within 60 days from date of presentation, must be stricken. Code 1923, § 6433; Ettore v. State, 214 Ala. 99, 106 So. 508. In absence of a bill of exceptions, the refusal of charges is not presented for review. Jennings v. State, 17 Ala. App. 6-40, 88 So. 187; McQueen v. State, 17 Ala. App. 628, 88 So. 190; Ramsey v. State, 18 Ala. App. 373, 92 So. 94; Sanford v. State, 19 Ala. App. 242, 96 8o. 646.
   RICE, J.

The state has made a motion to strike the bill of exceptions upon the ground that it was not signed by the presiding judge within 60 days from the date of its presentation, as required by law. The indorsements made by the trial judge show that the bill was presented to him October 29, 1925, and that the same was signed by him January 8, 1926. The bill was not signed within'60 days, but 71 days from the date of presentation. The motion to strike is granted. Code 1923, § 6433; Ettore v. State, 214 Ala. 99, 106 So. 508.

The only questions presented for review are those resulting from the refusal of certain charges requested by defendant. In the absence of a bill of exceptions we will not review the action of the trial court in refusing requested charges. Ramsey v. State, 18 Ala. App. 373, 92 So. 94.

Finding no error on the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.