# Huddleston v. State

> Alabama Court of Appeals · January 6, 1953 · 37 Ala. App. 57

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9691972

## Case

- **Full name:** Huddleston v. State
- **Court:** Alabama Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** January 6, 1953
- **Citations:** 37 Ala. App. 57; 64 So. 2d 90; 1953 Ala. App. LEXIS 335
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Price
- **Cited by:** 36 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9691972

## Opinion text

On Further Rehearing.
The Attorney General asserts in brief that our opinion on rehearing fails to recite the pertinent, essential and material facts in connection with the State’s motion for permission to file a motion in the circuit court to correct the judgment or minute entry.
Most of the facts which the Attorney General requests that we set forth pertain to matters appearing in the record proper and in the State’s motion and the affidavits attached thereto. Since the record proper and the motion will be before the Supreme Court in the event of certiorari, *71 we see no necessity for extending the opinion to include these matters.
The facts insisted on which do not appear in the record or motion are: (1) That counsel for defendant in open court at the hearing on this motion in the Court of Appeals admitted having written or prepared the defective judgment entry and delivered it to the clerk of the trial court for entry on the minute book. (2) That Bernard F. Sykes, assistant Attorney General representing the State of Alabama throughout these proceedings, offered at the hearing in the Court of Appeals to amend the State’s motion to include the averment that he was not aware at the time of submission nor until the point was raised in appellant’s brief that the judgment was defective.
We concluded that the motion should be denied because of the delay and the fact that an opinion had already been rendered. The facts stated in the brief do not cause us to change our conclusion.
Application overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9691972. Public record. Not legal advice.