DocketNumber: 8 Div. 303.
Judges: Simpson
Filed Date: 11/23/1943
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/2/2024
The evidence presented by the State was sufficient to afford a substantial inference adverse to the defendant's innocence, so a directed verdict in his behalf was properly refused. Emerson v. State,
In view of its presumed correctness (Cusimano v. State, Ala.App.,
There is, however, a manifest error in the record — not requiring a reversal but necessitating a correction of the sentence imposed upon the defendant.
The verdict of the jury appearing of record was "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged." The jury could have assessed a fine against him, Code 1940, Title 29, § 99; but it was not compulsory that they do so, Code 1940, Title 15, § 336. Having elected not to impose a fine, however, did not authorize the trial court to do so. The court was limited to the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment or confinement at hard labor. Spicer v. State,
It results that that portion of the judgment reciting the fixing of a fine by the court is of no effect and is treated as surplusage, and the judgment appealed from is corrected to this extent, with instructions that appellant be required to perform the authorized sentence, legally imposed, to-wit: Six months hard labor for the county, as punishment for the offense, and an additional seventy-three days for payment of the costs. Bragan v. State,
Judgment corrected.
Affirmed. *Page 305