Court Opinion

ID: 9692540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:56:55.434821+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:34.934625
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
BRADLEY, Judge.
On application for rehearing it is contended that this court erred in releasing the appellant from custody arising out of a contempt citation because appellant had the burden of proving that he does not have the $25,000, and having failed to carry this burden, is unable to purge himself of the contempt, and further that the trial judge heard appellant’s testimony ore tenus and was better able to determine therefrom if appellant was stating the truth.
There is no merit in this contention. Robertson v. State, 20 Ala.App. 514, 104 So. 561; Ex parte Gunnels, 25 Ala.App. 577, 151 So. 605. The undisputed testimony indicated the appellant did not have the money to deposit in a local bank.
Furthermore, there was no brief on the merits filed in opposition to appellant’s brief, thereby precluding an application for rehearing as a matter of right. Supreme Court Rules 34 and 12. As a result thereof, the application for rehearing is due to be dismissed.
Application for rehearing dismissed.