Court Opinion

ID: 9824585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 10:55:23.940019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:51.993357
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The application for. rehearing is based upon three grounds: “(1) This court erred in affirming this case. (2) This court erred in holding there was a reversible error in this case. (3) This court erred in affirming the case for and on account of the fact that said cause was not at issue and that the said case was determined by the court before the call of the division 'of the court in which the case arose.”
As to ground “one,” the opinion heretofore rendered is a complete answer. Ground “two,” is evidently a misprision, but pretermitting this, said ground is wholly untenable. As to ground “three,” supra, the records of this court affirmatively show this cause was not prematurely submitted, and that the submission was had under the provisions of Section 10282 of the Code 1923, the required notice having-been duly given. Said Section, supra, reads as follows: “10282. Criminal cases submitted at any time by consent; when submitted without consent of state. — During the sitting of the court all cases at issue may be submitted at any time without oral argument by consent of the parties or upon ten days’ notice to the opposite party or his counsel of record, which notice shall specify the date upon which the case is to be submitted. The court may in its discretion, permit oral argument at the time of such submission.”
What has been said above is conclusive as to the application for rehearing. However, for a non-compliance with the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 38, and under the decision in the case of Caraway v. State, 18 Ala.App. 547, 93 So. 376, the application for rehearing is dismissed.
Application dismissed.