Ex parte Reese
Supreme Court of Alabama
The legislature did not have the right to pass a criminal law which based the defendant’s right to appeal upon his financial ability to make bond; and if such construction is to be placed upon section 4226 of the Criminal Code, then said section is unconstitutional. — Reeves v. State, 96 Ala., 37 ; Sullivan v. Adapts, 3 Gray, 477; State v. Everett, 14 Minn. 332 ; Jones v. Robbins, 8 Gray, 341.
1Opinion of the CourtMcCLELLAN, J.
The only question in this case is whether a person proceeded against by information or complaint, charging a misdemeanor, in the county court, and who there, failing to demand a trial by jury, is duly tried and convicted, is entitled to an appeal to the circuit [or city) court without giving bond as required by section 4226 of the Code. We are opinion that the section in question is clearly within legislative competency, and therefore constitutional; -and that, of consequence a compliance with its requirements is a condition precedent to the right of appeal.
The application for mandamus is…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Alford v. State ex rel. Attorney GeneralSupreme Court of Alabama · 1910
- Puryear v. State Ex Rel. WadeAlabama Court of Appeals · 1917