From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holt v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Oct 3, 1961
133 So. 2d 511 (Ala. Crim. App. 1961)

Opinion

8 Div. 803.

October 3, 1961.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Colbert County, C.K. Delony, J.

No attorney marked for appellant.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., for the State.


Under an indictment charging robbery this appellant entered a plea of guilty of assault and battery. He was thereupon adjudged guilty of assault and battery and his punishment was fixed at a fine of $50 and costs, and a sentence of six months confinement in the county jail, the six months' sentence being suspended on payment of fine and costs.

The fine and costs not being paid or secured, the court ordered the defendant to serve 20 days in the county jail in payment of the fine, and to serve an additional 85 days in the county jail in payment of the costs of $63.40, being at the rate of seventy-five cents per day.

A sentence for costs must be for hard labor and not mere imprisonment. Pounders v. State, 37 Ala. App. 316, 67 So.2d 282; Pounders v. State, 37 Ala. App. 687, 74 So.2d 640.

This record otherwise is in all respects regular. The judgment of guilty is therefore due to be affirmed, but remanded to the lower court for proper sentence in accordance with what has been written above.

Affirmed, but remanded for proper sentence.


Summaries of

Holt v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Oct 3, 1961
133 So. 2d 511 (Ala. Crim. App. 1961)
Case details for

Holt v. State

Case Details

Full title:Lonzo HOLT v. STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Oct 3, 1961

Citations

133 So. 2d 511 (Ala. Crim. App. 1961)
133 So. 2d 511

Citing Cases

Price v. Thomas

In support of th[e] argument [that plaintiff has failed on the first prong], the State points to cases that…

Price v. Dunn

As for the first prong, whether plaintiff has failed to plead that the use of midazolam hydrochloride is…