Opinion · Alabama Court Opinions

CRAWFORD v. STATE, 24 Ala. App. 179 (1931)

CRAWFORD v. STATE., 132 So. 181 (Ala. Ct. App. 1931)

Type
Opinion
Court
Alabama Court Opinions
Jurisdiction
Alabama
Date
1931-01-20
Topic
general

CRAWFORD v. STATE, 24 Ala. App. 179 (1931) 132 So. 181 CRAWFORD v. STATE. 3 Div. 675.Court of Appeals of Alabama. January 20, 1931.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed CRAWFORD v. STATE, 24 Ala. App. 179 (1931). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

CRAWFORD v. STATE,24 Ala. App. 179(1931)
132 So. 181
CRAWFORD v. STATE.
3 Div. 675.
Court of Appeals of Alabama.
January 20, 1931.
Appeal from Probate Court, Escambia County; R. E. Adams, Judge.

Petition of Eugene Conally Crawford for habeas corpus. From a judgment denying the writ, petitioner appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

The judgment recites in part: "After hearing and considering all of the evidence in the case, the same being written and documentary, and the same being understood by the court, the court is of the opinion and it is the judgment and order of the court that the said Eugene Conally Crawford is rightfully detained and that he be remanded to the county jail to await the arrival of an extradition warrant."
Frank G. Horne, of Atmore, for appellant.

If the evidence at preliminary trial does not show probable cause for believing accused guilty, he should be discharged. Ex parte Simpson,3 Ala. App. 222,57 So. 518. There must be identification of the person apprehended. Neal v. State,18 Ala. App. 395,92 So. 510. The arresting officer must have an exemplified copy of the indictment from the demanding state, a warrant issued thereon, and the accused must be properly identified. Cunningham v. Baker,104 Ala. 160,16 So. 68, 53 Am. St. Rep. 27; Hill v. Wyrosdick,216 Ala. 235,113 So. 49; Snead v. State,18 Ala. App. 437,93 So. 48; Ala. Nat. Bank v. Chattanooga Door Sash Co.,106 Ala. 663,18 So. 74. The writ of habeas corpus will lie before an investigation when the investigation under Code, §§ 4167 and 4168, are unnecessarily delayed. Snead v. State, supra.

Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.

Brief did not reach the Reporter.
PER CURIAM.
Under the authority of the opinion in the case of Snead v. State,18 Ala. App. 437,93 So. 48, in connection with Code 1923, § 4166, we hold that petitioner was not entitled to his release at the time this petition was filed. However, the order of commitment, entered by the court, from which this appeal was taken, is erroneous, in that it does not comply with Code 1923, § 4168. And, under the authority of that same Code section it would appear, and we hold, that petitioner cannot be longer detained under this particular proceeding, unless, since the petition was first filed, the additional action contemplated has been taken under and in accordance with the provisions of said section.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.