From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stinson v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jun 21, 1962
142 So. 2d 899 (Ala. 1962)

Opinion

8 Div. 110.

June 21, 1962.

Appeal from the Court of Appeals, 142 So.2d 897.

John T. Batten, Montgomery, for petitioner.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., opposed.


Petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in the case of Stinson v. State of Alabama, 142 So.2d 897.

We have no alternative but to strike the petition because it is not on transcript paper, as required by Rule 32 of the Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, 261 Ala. XIX, XXXI (formerly Supreme Court Rule 36, Code 1940, Tit. 7, Appendix). Jemison v. State, 270 Ala. 589, 120 So.2d 751; Houston v. State, 265 Ala. 588, 93 So.2d 439; Conley v. State, 265 Ala. 450, 92 So.2d 9; Williams v. State, 258 Ala. 638, 64 So.2d 617; Duckett v. State, 257 Ala. 589, 60 So.2d 357, and authorities cited in those cases.

As we see it, nothing would be gained by discussing the merits of the petition. Anything said would be dictum.

Petition stricken.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Stinson v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jun 21, 1962
142 So. 2d 899 (Ala. 1962)
Case details for

Stinson v. State

Case Details

Full title:James STINSON v. STATE of Alabama

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Jun 21, 1962

Citations

142 So. 2d 899 (Ala. 1962)
142 So. 2d 899

Citing Cases

Ex Parte Downs

The petition for certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals must be stricken because it is not on transcript…