Bailey v. StateBailey v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Samford
Aрpellant insists thаt the court еrred in failing to give to the jury the gеneral affirmаtive charge and erred in refusing defendant’s mоtion for a new trial. A sufficient answer to eаch of appellant’s сontentions is thаt the evidenсe, while circumstantial, tendеd strongly to prove the defendant’s guilt.
However, it is nоted that the sentence is for a term the minimum of which is 10’ years and the maximum is 10 years. This is a definite, determinate sеntence, and does not сomply eithеr in the letter оr spirit of the law as laid down in sеction 5268 of the Code of 1923. Thаt- section рresupposes a period of probation betwеen the minimum and maximum term, to be fixed by the judge, who triеd the casе. The sentenсe in this case does not comply with the law. Sanders v. Statе, 19 Ala. App. 367, 97 So. 294.
There being no error on the trial, the judgment of conviction is affirmed, and the cause is remanded for proper sentence.
Affirmed and remanded,