Court Opinion

ID: 9537180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:13:52.56407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:09.896124
License: Public Domain

On- Application for Rehearing
LAWSON, Justice.
Appellant has filed an application' for rehearing and a petition for writ of certiorari for the purpose of correcting the record upon which this cause was submitted so as to include therein a judgment nunc pro' tunc rendered by the trial court after our original opinion was delivered. The judgment nunc pro tunc shows that the trial court overruled the original motion for new trial filed on June 22, 1964, as well as the “defendant’s additional grounds to motion,” which additional grounds were filed on June 26, 1964.
The brief filed in support of the application for rehearing does not question our original opinion in any respect. It is, in essence, an argument that certain of the grounds of the original motion for new trial were well taken and that the trial court erred in not granting a new trial based on those grounds.
Obviously that brief is not to be considered unless we grant the petition for writ of certiorari.
Supreme Court Rule 18 provides as follows :
“A certiorari to perfect or bring up a complete record may be awarded, on motion of either party, at any time before the submission of the cause, if its object be to sustain a judgment, without a showing; but if to reverse a judgment, a sufficient showing must be made.”
The case of Bowlin v. Bowlin, 267 Ala. 655, 104 So.2d 630, was submitted in this court on December 5, 1957. On the next day the appellant filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to correct the record. We refused to issue the writ on the ground that the petition therefor came after submission. There was no motion to set aside the submission.
We followed Bowlin v. Bowlin in Welch v. State, 271 Ala. 199, 123 So.2d 205, where the petition for writ of certiorari was filed after submission and there was no motion, to set aside the submission. However, in Welch v. State we indicated that a motion to set aside the submission might have been entertained.
In the instant case the petition for certiorari comes not only after submisssion but after an opinion and judgment have been rendered by this court. There is no-motion to set aside the submission, hence the petition for certiorari is denied. Bowlin v. Bowlin, supra; Welch v. State, supra; Bailey v. State, 239 Ala. 2, 193 So. 873. In the case last cited we held, in effect, that the Court of Appeals erred in granting a writ of certiorari after submission, opin*443ion and judgment where no motion was made to set aside the submission.
Even if the appellant had filed a motion to set aside the submission, it would have to meet the burden upon it of showing, among other things, that it exercised due diligence in the preparation and presentation of the appeal. Gossett v. Pratt, 250 Ala. 300, 34 So.2d 145. Appellant has made no such showing. No further application for rehearing, motion or petition will be considered in this case.
Application for writ of certiorari denied.
Application for rehearing denied.
GOODWYN, COLEMAN and HAR-WOOD, JJ., concur.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and MERRILL, J., concur specially as follows.