Hamilton v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
1Opinion of the Court
CATES, Judge.
Second degree forgery; six years imprisonment.
The indictment hybridizes Form No. 64 and Form No. 63 of Code 1940, T. 15, § 259. It begins with No. 64 then sets out an instrument and then ends with (copied from No. 63), “or with intent to injure or defraud * *
The instrument in our record is apparently Xeroxed, i. e. copied by some photographic process. It is only partially legible. It has been stapled into the transcript. Had Hamilton not appealed in forma pauperis on proper motion, we should have dismissed the appeal for this breach of the Supreme Court’s Rule 27, second…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Fuller v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1952
- Rembert v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- Fuller v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1951
3Cited by2 opinions
- Clay v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1975
- Wooten v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1971