Kirkland v. State

Decided April 13, 1915

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1915-04-13

Gaming. Appeal from Dallas Circuit Court. Heard before Hou. B. M. Miller. Bry Kirkland was convicted of retailing and he appeals. No brief reached the Reporter. The only error is in the failure of the judgment to set out the amount of the cost and ascertain the number of days to work it out at 75c per day.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1924

1 state decisions

Relies on Evans v. State · Woods v. State · Loudermilk v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed in part, and in part reversed and remanded · Decided 1915-04-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

THOMAS, J.

¶1The judgment entry is erroneous in that it fails to set out either the amount of costs or the number of days required to work out the costs at the rate of 75 cents per day.

¶2This being the only error in the record, the judgment of conviction and the sentence are in all things affirmed, except as to the costs. To this extent the judgment and sentence are reversed in order that the trial court may enter up proper judgment and sentence as to the costs in conformity with the requirements of section 7635 of the Code.—Loudermilk v. State, 4 Ala. App. 167, 58 South. 180; Woods v. State, 10 Ala. App. 96, 64 South. 508; Evans’ Case, 109 Ala. 11, 19 South. 535.

¶3Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded