<p>1. Criminal Law <&wkey;995(2) — Judgment os Conviction — Sufficiency.</p> <p>As against contention that judgment of conviction fails to show that a plea of guilty was entered, judgment, reciting that “issue was joined,” is conclusive that proper plea was interposed.</p> <p>2. Criminal Law &wkey;?321 — Presumption — Regularity oe Proceeding — Courts oe General Jurisdiction.</p> <p>A presumption lies in favor of the regularity “of the proceeding of any court of general jurisdiction.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1918-03-12
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 1982
11 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1
[1]
There is no bill of exceptions in the record, and the only error insisted upon is that the judgment rendered fails to show affirmatively that a plea of not guilty was entered by the defendants, or that, standing mute, such plea was entered for them by the court. The judgment recites:
“Comes the state by its solicitor and the defendants in person and by attorney, and issue being joined,” etc. (The remaining part of the judgment is in all things regular.)
¶2
Defendants contend that the judgment must affirmatively -show that the plea of not guilty was interposed either by the defendants or by the court for them. Upon a casual reading of the second headnote in Childs v. State, 97 Ala. 49, 12 South. 441, it would appear that this contention was -sustained; 'but the opinion upon which this headnote is based states a very different rule. The opinion says:
“The record of the pleadings and judgment entry in the case affirmatively shows that the defendant was tried and convicted, as charged in the indictment, without having pleaded to the indictment, and affirmatively shows that the plea of ‘not guilty’ was not entered by the court for him,
and that thei'e was no issue joined.”
(Italics ours.)
¶3
To the same effect is the decision in Jackson’s Case, 91 Ala. 55, 8 South. 773, 24 Am. St. Rep. 860; and in Powell v. Henry & Co., 96 Ala. 414, 11 South. 311, McClellan, J., says: “The record … does not show that issue was ever joined,” etc.
¶4
[2]
The judgment in the instant ease does affirmatively show that issue was joined. “It is an invincible presumption of the law,”
*433
says 15 R. C. L. p. 875, “that a judicial tribunal, acting within its jurisdiction, has acted impartially and honestly, and the integrity and value of the judicial system, as an institution for the administration of public and private justice, rests largely upon this principle. Akin to this is the important one that a presumption lies in favor of the regularity of the proceedings of any court of general jurisdiction.” The judgment, reciting that “issue was joined,” is conclusive to show that the proper plea was interposed. Eslava v. Elliott, 5 Ala. 264, 39 Am. Dec. 326; Waller v. Campbell, 25 Ala. 544.
¶5
There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
