Court Opinion

ID: 9824587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 10:55:41.206581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:52.133672
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
There has been filed, in this case, a purported application for rehearing, by L. S. Biggs, solicitor of the Twenty-First judicial circuit. We are informed by said solicitor, in effect, that the Attorney General of the state refused to join in the application for rehearing ; hence his reasons for making the application direct.
 There are two reasons why this purported application for rehearing may not be considered by this court: (1) There has been no brief filed by the state in this case upon submission, or within 15 days thereafter, as required by Supreme Court rule 38. This rule applies to criminal cases, as in civil cases. Caraway v. State, 207 Ala. 588, 93 So. 548. See, also, Ex parte Shirey (In re Shirey v. State) 206 Ala. 167, 90 So. 758.
The remaining, and equally conclusive, reason for striking the application for rehearing, is that a solicitor is without authority to file the application in this court. Such applications must be in the name of the state, and must be made by and through the Attorney General; there is no other officer entitled to use the name and authority of the state. Ex parte State of Alabama (In re Stephenson) 113 Ala. 85, 21 So. 210. In that case Brickell, Chief Justice, said:
“It is manifest that this tribunal can recognize no other representative of the state than the Attorney General,” * * * as “the law commits to [his] judgment and discretion” matters of this kind, “and when he proceeds, he must proceed in the name of the state.”
See, also, State ex rel. Seibels v. State, 18 Ala. App. 531, 93 So. 229.
Application dismissed.