Court Opinion

ID: 9682715
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:15:16.95069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:40.852699
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
This appellant has filed an application for rehearing, and has also moved to “re*251instate his case on the docket and grant him a hearing on the merits.”
Ground 1 asserts that date of filing the motion in the clerk’s office, as shown by the record, is erroneous.
The remaining grounds assert various matters of excuse for delay in filing the record in the court below, such as the court reporter being involved in preparing transcripts in other cases, or the involvement in other matters of the former attorney representing the appellant at the trial.
Under the provisions of Section 827(1a), Title 7, Code of Alabama 1940, the period of time within which the reporter must file the transcript may be extended by the trial court for cause. No application for extension of time for filing the transcript was requested of the court below. The matters set forth in the motion in excuse for the late filing of the transcript, and the letters and affidavits in support thereof should have been addressed to the court below upon a motion filed below seeking an extension of time for filing the transcript with the clerk below. Such matters cannot be considered by us. Watkins v. Kelley, 262 Ala. 524, 80 So.2d 247.
Ground 1 of the motion for rehearing, asserting that the date of the filing of the motion for the new trial with the clerk below is erroneous as it appears in the record, would necessitate our consideration of matters de hors this record.
An appellant is charged with the duty of presenting a correct record to an appellate court. Weldon v. State, 21 Ala.App. 357, 108 So. 270; Lipscomb v. State, 37 Ala.App. 379, 68 So.2d 862.
We can deal on review only with the record as filed by the appellant. Garrett v. State ex rel. Matthews, 235 Ala. 457, 179 So. 636.
An appellate court is bound by the record, and such record may not be impeached by affidavits, or otherwise, by matters de hors the record. Teal v. State, 30 Ala.App. 109, 1 So.2d 316; and evidence or matters de hors the record are not subject to consideration. Lindsey v. Barton, 260 Ala. 419, 70 So.2d 633.
Application overruled.