Wayne Eugene Thomas, alias, was indicted and triеd for forcibly ravishing the pros-ecutrix. The jury returnеd a verdict of “guilty of rape as chargеd in the indictment” and fixed his punishment at twenty years imprisonment in the penitentiary. This appeаl followed.
The State’s evidence established that the prosecutrix was driving home alоne from an office party at Bark’s Lounge on the night of August 27,1977, when she noticed a blue light flashing оn a car behind her. When she stopped her car, a man, whom she positively identified in court as the appellant, came up to her car, showed her a badge and аsked for her driver’s license. She noticed he was not in uniform and said, “You’re not a coр.” The appellant brandished a pistol and forced the prosecutrix at pistol point into his car. After driving to a ■ remote woоded area, the appellant forсed the pros-ecutrix to have intercоurse with him, then drove her back to her car аnd released her. The prosecutrix then drоve to her mother s house and called thе police.
The husband of the proseсutrix confirmed that he kept the children while his wife attended an office party. When she did not return home by 2:00 a. m., he got up and went looking fоr her and finally found her car. He notified the shеriff and later found his wife at her mother’s.
The aрpellant testified in his own behalf that he saw the prosecutrix’ car pull off the road аnd he stopped to see if she were having car trouble. Thomas, the appellаnt, stated that the prosecutrix suggested they drivе somewhere else and have a drink. He indicated that when they parked they had intercourse, but that he did not force her in any way into this act.
I
The sole issue raised on apрeal concerns the sufficiency of the affidavit upon which the search warrant оf appellant’s car was issued. At no time prior to trial, during same, or by motion for new trial, wеre the affidavit and search warrant plаced into evidence .or made a part of this record.
“[A]n affidavit and search warrant not contained in the record on аppeal cannot be considerеd on review of the trial court’s ruling as to its sufficiency or any of the underlying circumstances supporting the warrant.”
Barbosa v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 331 So.2d. 811 (1976); Mayes v. State, Ala.Cr.App.,350 So.2d 339 (1977); McHellen v. State, Ala.Cr.App.,351 So.2d 689 (1977); Goodman v. State, Ala.Cr.App.,356 So.2d 691 , cert. denied,356 So.2d 698 (1978); and Turner v. State,383 So.2d 393 (1980).
There is no error established by this record. See Harris v. State, Ala.Cr.App.,
This cause is due to be and is hereby
AFFIRMED.