Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

497 So. 2d 205

Mays v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · decided 1986-07-15

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 1996

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-07-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

¶2Under Rule 10 (f), Rules of Appellate Procedure, we remand this case to the trial court. We are unable to find in the record any determination of whether the accused was found to be indigent or was found to be not indigent. The evidence seems to indicate the accused was placed on leave without pay when he was charged with this offense so that there is no evidence of a source of income. However, the trial judge seemed to recall that there had been a determination of indigency which does not appear in the record. If there was such a determination, it is important in the decision in this case that it be a part of the record. This case is remanded, ex mero motu, for further proceedings to determine whether or not there was in fact before the trial of the case a determination of indigency or non-indigency.

¶3REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

¶4All the Judges concur.

¶5

ON RETURN TO REMAND

/497/so2d/205 · .json · Public domain