LAWSON v. STATE, 33 Ala. App. 333 (1948)

LAWSON v. STATE, 33 Ala. App. 333 (1948)
33 So.2d 405


4 Div. 18.Court of Appeals of Alabama.
January 13, 1948.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Russell County; J. S. Williams, Judge.Page 334

Buddy, alias Feetsie, Lawson was convicted of burglary and grand larceny, and he appeals.

Affirmed; remanded for proper sentence.

A. L. Patterson, of Phenix City, for appellant.

No person shall be convicted twice for the same offense or twice punished for the same offense. Const.U.S. Amdt. 5, U.S.C.A.; Ex parte Williams, 207 Ala. 69, 91 So. 915; Jackson v. State, 136 Ala. 96, 33 So. 888.

A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and L. E. Barton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Here there were two criminal acts growing put of the same transaction and constituting violations of two separate statutes. The state was not under duty to elect. Both offenses were properly joined in the same indictment, and each count subject to separate verdict. The sentences imposed should run consecutively and not concurrently. Code 1940, Tit. 14, ?? 86, 331; Tit. 15, ? 249; Wilson v. State, 31 Ala. App. 232,14 So.2d 382; McDaniel v. State, 30 Ala. App. 447, 7 So.2d 583; Ashberry v. State, 24 Ala. App. 375, 135 So. 605; Grayson v. State,28 Ala. App. 210, 182 So. 579; State v. Horton, 31 Ala. App. 71,14 So.2d 557; Code, Tit. 45, ? 32; Rose v. State, 117 Ala. 77,23 So. 638.

CARR, Judge.

Appellant was charged under Counts 1 and 2 with burglary and under Count 3 with grand larceny. The jury found the defendant guilty of both burglary and grand larceny. In response to this verdict, the trial court imposed two separate punishments, one for burglary and one for grand larceny.

This double punishment was unauthorized. The constitutional provision that no one shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense is broad enough to mean that no one can lawfully be punished twice for different offenses growing out of the same state of facts. Gordon v. State, 71 Ala. 315; Myrick v. State, 20 Ala. App. 18, 100 So. 455.

This is the only question presented for review by this appeal, and the judgment of the court below is otherwise affirmed.

It follows that the cause must be remanded to the court below for proper punishment. It is so ordered.

Affirmed. Remanded for proper sentence.