Hannon v. State

226 So. 2d 90 | Ala. | 1969

This appeal is from a verdict and judgment of guilty of robbery and a sentence of 20 years and one day in the penitentiary.

Appellant contends only that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his request for a continuance because a witness who had been subpoenaed was not present, there being no return made of the subpoena.

We have repeatedly held that whether a continuance in a criminal case should be granted for absent witnesses is within the discretion of the trial judge. 6A Ala.Dig. Criminal Law 594, et seq.

We have reviewed the record before us and cannot conclude that the trial judge abused his discretion.

Affirmed.

COLEMAN, HARWOOD, and BLOODWORTH, JJ., concur.