State v. Martin

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Gray

    55 So. 2d 354 (Ala. 1951)   Cited 2 times

    The motion was "granted on the ground that the regulation complained of is beyond the powers of the director of the department of conservation as set out and defined in Title 8, §§ 17 and 21 of the Code." In State v. Martin, 30 Ala. App. 466, 468, 10 So.2d 671, 672, the Court of Appeals held, Rice, J., writing: "The right of the State to a review in a criminal case is dependent upon the statutory authority which is set out in the Code section cited in the next preceding paragraph, and may not be enlarged or extended by judicial construction.

  2. State v. Martin

    10 So. 2d 673 (Ala. 1942)   Cited 3 times

    Certiorari to Court of Appeals. Petition of the State, by its Attorney General, for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in the case of State v. Earl Martin, 30 Ala. App. 466, 10 So.2d 671, wherein the appeal by the State from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to affidavit was dismissed. Writ denied on rehearing.

  3. State v. Gautney

    344 So. 2d 232 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977)   Cited 14 times

    The right of the state to a review in a criminal case is dependent upon the statutory authority as indicated above, and may not be enlarged or extended by judicial construction. State v. Powe, 28 Ala. App. 402, 185 So. 781 (1939); State v. Martin, 30 Ala. App. 466, 10 So.2d 671 (1942). Title 15, § 370 does not provide for an appeal by the state where the enforcement of the statute has been held to be unconstitutional but the constitutionality of the statute itself has not been questioned. Under such circumstances this court is without proper jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.

  4. State v. Bibby

    47 Ala. App. 240 (Ala. Crim. App. 1971)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that § 14 did not bar proceedings regarding the writ of error coram nobis because the State was not a defendant, no money or property was at stake, and "§ 14 of the Constitution does not inhibit the trial courts from reexamining questions of the fact which led to the original judgment of conviction"

    The State can obtain review in a criminal case only upon statutory authority. State v. Cagle, 42 Ala. App. 344, 164 So.2d 512; State v. Pike, 36 Ala. App. 267, 54 So.2d 638; State v. Martin, 30 Ala. App. 446, 10 So.2d 671. The State has no right to appeal from an order granting a petitioner's petition for a writ of error coram nobis.

  5. State v. Gray

    55 So. 2d 358 (Ala. Crim. App. 1951)   Cited 2 times
    In Gray, a trial court granted a motion to quash criminal proceedings against a fisherman accused of using particular equipment to catch fish in portions of Marshall County; however, the State's appeal from that motion was dismissed on procedural grounds, and no opinion was expressed concerning the correctness of that ruling or concerning the scope of the Department's regulatory authority.

    The motion was 'granted on the ground that the regulation complained of is beyond the powers of the director of the department of conservation as set out and defined in Title 8, §§ 17 and 21 of the Code.' "In State v. Martin, 30 Ala. App. 466, 468, 10 So.2d 671, 672, the Court of Appeals held, Rice, J., writing: " 'The right of the State to a review in a criminal case is dependent upon the statutory authority which is set out in the Code section cited in the next preceding paragraph, and may not be enlarged or extended by judicial construction.