Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Howard Edward ESCO v. STATE.

PER CURIAM.

On Rehearing

Appellant stands convicted of a violation of Section 229 of Title 14, Code of Alabama of 1940. On original submission no brief was filed in defendant's behalf. We carefully reviewed the record, as is required in criminal cases, and finding no ruling of the court which merited discussion, the cause was affirmed without opinion.

On rehearing a brief has been filed. Counsel insists the statute under which defendant stands convicted is so vague and uncertain as to be violative of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.

The Supreme Court has held the statute valid in Morris v. State, 144 Ala. 81, 39 So. 973.

Application for rehearing overruled.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed and remanded on authority of Esco v. State, 179 So.2d 766.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ESCO v. STATE
(Nov 2, 1965)