262 So. 2d 639 | Ala. Crim. App. | 1972
This is an appeal from the denial of coram nobis.
Section 8 of said Act expressly repeals all laws or parts of laws in conflict with the Act. § 3(a) makes violations of § 2 felonies.
Isbell claims that the Drug Abuse Control Act did not repeal Act No. 189, September 15, 1961, effective sixty days thereafter. This latter act relates to the possession, etc., of amphetamines with misdemeanor punishment for a first offender.
Without analyzing the two acts in detail (such as counterfeiting drugs, record keeping, etc.), we can say unequivocally that § 8 of the later Drug Abuse Control Act as to the penalty for possession of amphetamines did repeal the discrepant penalties therefor in the earlier act of 1961 for offenses occurring after August 24, 1967, at least up to September 16, 1971, the effective date of the Alabama Uniform Controlled Substances Act.1
Moreover, we must remember that the instant proceeding is by way of coram nobis which relates to errors of fact which could have prevented the original judgment of conviction. Hence, cases of direct appeal such as Ramsey v. State,
The former Court of Appeals in Eldridge v. State,
44 Ala. App. 327 ,208 So.2d 236 (a habeas corpus appeal) said in part:"* * * Under Code 1940, T. 45, § 32, as amended, words of concurrency must be explicit and probably must set out the other sentence by an exact description. Glisson v. State,
281 Ala. 187 ,200 So.2d 498 ."Only the judgment (not a prison record notation) can prove or disprove concurrency. This, because the statute, § 32, supra, is the only authority for concurrency, and it requires that concurrency be recorded in the judgment entry itself. Crook v. State,
44 Ala. App. 83 ,203 So.2d 138 (hn. 3)."
This question, too, was solely one of law and hence not amenable to coram nobis.
The judgment of the circuit court is due to be
Affirmed.
PRICE, P. J., and ALMON, TYSON and HARRIS, JJ., concur.