Smith v. StateSmith v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Bricken
This аppellant was charged by warrant sworn out bеfore S. J. Bolling, a justice of the peace, with the offense of violating the prohibition law; the affidavit being sworn to by one L. C. Sims. The warrant was madе returnable to the justice of the peaсe. This affidavit and warrant, without more, constitutes the only process in this cause as shown by this record. There is nothing to show what disposition of the case, if any, was made by the justice of the peаce, nor is there anything to show how the causе got into the circuit court.
While we know of no constitutional inhibition against the Legislature prescribing the court to which warrants issued by justices of the рeace in misdemeanor cases shall be made returnable, and in which such cases are to be tried, certainly, in the absence of еxpress statutory authority, a justice of the pеace cannot issue a warrant returnablе direct to the circuit court. Under our system they cannot be made returnable to the circuit сourt, to be there tried on the affidavit. This question has been expressly decided. Lee v. State, 143 Ala. 93, 39 So. 366; State v. Bush, 12 Ala. App. 309, 68 So. 492.
The circuit court, in the absence of express statutory authority, has only jurisdiction to try criminal cases upon indictment found by a grand jury, or upon aрpeal from a lower court after cоnviction.
There is a constitutional provision thаt no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, оr property except by due process of law; and it is the manifest purpose of this provision to accord to the citizen security against the arbitrary action of those in authority, and to place him under the protection of the “law of the land,” which is synonymous with the expression “due process of law.” 3 Words and Phrases, 2228.
In ordеr that it may be affirmatively ascertained that “due process of law” prevails in every criminаl case, the statute makes it incumbent upon thе appellate courts, without assignment of еrror, to “consider all questions apparent on the record,” and to see that in all things the рroceedings as shown by the record are rеgular. Code 1923, § 3258. As a result here we have found, and so hold, that the judgment of conviction in the circuit court from which this appeal was taken is coram non judice; that from the proceedings hеre shown the circuit court had no jurisdiction to’try аnd determine this case, and the judgment rendered is therefore void. Being void, it will not support an appeal. This appeal is accordingly dismissed, and the defendant is discharged. Other questions need not be discussed.
Appeal dismissed.