Smith v. StateSmith v. State
Aрpellant was convicted of the crimе against nature, a common law offense, the *324 punishment for which is set out in T. 14, § 106, Code of Alabаma 1940, Recompiled 1958. The sentence fixеd by the court was ten years imprisonment in the рenitentiary.
At the time of trial appellant testified that he was sixteen years of age. On arraignment, at which time he was propеrly represented by an attorney, appellant petitioned the court to be triеd as youthful offender under the terms of T. 15, § 266(1) et seq. After investigating the case as required under the terms of the above law, the court denied the petition and ruled that appellant bе tried as an adult. The case was thereupon set for hearing at a future date and tried at that time.
As we understand the intent and terms of thе Youthful Offender Act, supra, the court is invested with а discretion to grant or deny a juvenile his status as a youthful offender. From the record we sеe no apparent abuse of this discrеtion and, of course, cannot presumе such abuse to have occurred. No error appears in the action of the court in this respect.
Appellant further complains that the sentence of ten years, which is the maximum provided in the charge for which the appellant was tried, is excessive and an abuse of discretion on the рart of the court.
In the case of
Lee v.
State,
“ ‘It is further contended that а reversal is due because of the alleged severity of the punishment imposed. Since the sentence was within the statutory limit, however, it must be here affirmed. It was the prerogative of the trial court to assess such punishment, within lеgal limits, as sound discretion should dictate. Sales v. State,31 Ala.App. 19 ,12 So.2d 101 certiorari denied, Id.,244 Ala. 30 ,12 So.2d 103 ; Wood v. State,28 Ala.App. 464 , 465,187 So. 250 , 251. Nothing is shown to indicate an abuse of this discretion.’
“The above is a correсt statement of the doctrine governing which is that where a trial court acts within the limits providеd by statute in imposing punishment, his discretion is not reviеwable or revisible. Wood v. State,28 Ala.App. 464 ,187 So. 250 ; Yates v. State,31 Ala.App. 362 ,17 So.2d 776 ; Ganey v. State,36 Ala.App. 570 ,60 So.2d 861 .”
See also Alabama Digest, Criminal Law, Volume 7, <®=31208(2).
An examinаtion of this record reveals that the evidеnce presented a question of faсt as to the guilt or innocence of the appellant which question was propеrly submitted to the jury by the court. Although it is not necessary to review the sordid evidence in this case, it was ample to support the verdict of guilty rendered by the jury.
An examination of this record reveals no error of a reversible nature. The case is due to be affirmed.
Affirmed.