will not presume error in Alabama

2010See also Roberts v. State, 627 So.2d 1114, 1116 (Ala.Crim.App.1993).” Johnson v. State, 823 So.2d 1, 18-19 (Ala.Crim.App.2001).

2010See also Roberts v. State, 627 So.2d 1114, 1116 (Ala.Crim.App.1993).” 823 So.2d at 18-19 .

2010See also Roberts v. State, 627 So.2d 1114, 1116 (Ala.Crim.App.1993).” Johnson v. State, 823 So.2d 1, 18-19 (Ala.Crim.App.2001).

2010See also Roberts v. State, 627 So.2d 1114, 1116 (Ala.Crim.App.1993).” 823 So.2d at 18-19 .

2010Other than defense counsel’s assertions in support of the Batson motion, there is simply no evidence in the record of the race of prospective jurors on the venire, of which prospective jurors were struck by the State and which were struck by the defense, or even of the identity or race of the jurors who ultimately sat on Johnson’s jury. ‘It is the appellant’s duty to provide this Court with a complete record on appeal.’ Knight v. State, 621 So.2d 394, 395 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). ‘ “Where the record is silent on appeal, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done, but r

2010Other than defense counsel’s assertions in support of the Batson motion, there is simply no evidence in the record of the race of prospective jurors on the venire, of which prospective jurors were struck by the State and which were struck by the defense, or even of the identity or race of the jurors who ultimately sat on Johnson’s jury. ‘It is the appellant’s duty to provide this Court with a complete record on appeal.’ Knight v. State, 621 So.2d 394, 395 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). ‘ “Where the record is silent on appeal, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done, but r

2011However, nothing in the record indicates that the circuit clerk makes selections in such a manner and nothing indicates that Knight’s motion was assigned to Judge Hobbs’s docket pursuant to option (2). 4 The majority, in reversing the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, has made two factual assumptions in favor of Knight, neither of which is supported by the record or asserted by Knight: that Judge Hobbs does not occupy the seat of the judge who sentenced Knight and that the circuit clerk exercised discretion in selecting Judge Hobbs to hear Knight’s motion. 5 Doing so runs afoul of the

2010Other than defense counsel’s assertions in support of the Batson motion, there is simply no evidence in the record of the race of prospective jurors on the venire, of which prospective jurors were struck by the State and which were struck by the defense, or even of the identity or race of the jurors who ultimately sat on Johnson’s jury. ‘It is the appellant’s duty to provide this Court with a complete record on appeal.’ Knight v. State, 621 So.2d 394, 395 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). ‘ “Where the record is silent on appeal, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done, but r

2011However, nothing in the record indicates that the circuit clerk makes selections in such a manner and nothing indicates that Knight’s motion was assigned to Judge Hobbs’s docket pursuant to option (2). 4 The majority, in reversing the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, has made two factual assumptions in favor of Knight, neither of which is supported by the record or asserted by Knight: that Judge Hobbs does not occupy the seat of the judge who sentenced Knight and that the circuit clerk exercised discretion in selecting Judge Hobbs to hear Knight’s motion. 5 Doing so runs afoul of the

2010Other than defense counsel’s assertions in support of the Batson motion, there is simply no evidence in the record of the race of prospective jurors on the venire, of which prospective jurors were struck by the State and which were struck by the defense, or even of the identity or race of the jurors who ultimately sat on Johnson’s jury. ‘It is the appellant’s duty to provide this Court with a complete record on appeal.’ Knight v. State, 621 So.2d 394, 395 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). ‘ “Where the record is silent on appeal, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done, but r

2010Other than defense counsel’s assertions in support of the Batson motion, there is simply no evidence in the record of the race of prospective jurors on the venire, of which prospective jurors were struck by the State and which were struck by the defense, or even of the identity or race of the jurors who ultimately sat on Johnson’s jury. ‘It is the appellant’s duty to provide this Court with a complete record on appeal.’ Knight v. State, 621 So.2d 394, 395 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). ‘ “Where the record is silent on appeal, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done, but r

2010Other than defense counsel’s assertions in support of the Batson motion, there is simply no evidence in the record of the race of prospective jurors on the venire, of which prospective jurors were struck by the State and which were struck by the defense, or even of the identity or race of the jurors who ultimately sat on Johnson’s jury. ‘It is the appellant’s duty to provide this Court with a complete record on appeal.’ Knight v. State, 621 So.2d 394, 395 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). ‘ “Where the record is silent on appeal, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done, but r

2009“This court will not presume error on the part of the trial court.” Pickett v. Pickett, 792 So.2d 1124, 1128 (Ala.Civ.App.2001).

2009"This court will not presume error on the part of the trial court." Pickett v. Pickett, 792 So.2d 1124, 1128 (Ala. Civ.App.2001).

2001In Ex parte Veazey, 637 So.2d 1348, 1349 (Ala.1993), this Court held: "Where one reasonable view of the evidence supports the trial court's judgment, the judgment must be upheld, even if another, perhaps better reasoned, view of the evidence might have dictated a different outcome." Further, this Court has stated, "`In reviewing the judgment of a trial court, this Court will not presume error and will affirm the trial court's judgment if it is supported by any valid legal ground.'" McKenzie Methane v. M-W Drilling, 653 So.2d 982, 984 (Ala.1995), quoting Marvin's, Inc. v. Robertson, 608 So.2d 3

2001In Ex parte Veazey , 637 So.2d 1348 , 1349 (Ala. 1993), this Court held: "Where one reasonable view of the evidence supports the trial court's judgment, the judgment must be upheld, even if another, perhaps better reasoned, view of the evidence might have dictated a different outcome." Further, this Court has stated, "`In reviewing the judgment of a trial court, this Court will not presume error and will affirm the trial court's judgment if it is supported by any valid legal ground.'" McKenzie Methane v. M-W Drilling , 653 So.2d 982 , 984 (Ala. 1995), quoting Marvin's, Inc. v. Robertson , 608

2008D.C.S. v. L.B., 4 So.3d 513, 521 (Ala.Civ.App.2008); see generally Dean v. Dean, 998 So.2d 1060, 1066 (Ala.Civ.App. 2008); Pickett v. Pickett, 792 So.2d 1124, 1128 (Ala.Civ.App.2001).

2008D.C.S. v. L.B., 4 So.3d 513, 521 (Ala.Civ.App.2008); see generally Dean v. Dean, 998 So.2d 1060, 1066 (Ala.Civ.App. 2008); Pickett v. Pickett, 792 So.2d 1124, 1128 (Ala.Civ.App.2001).

2008D.C.S. v. L.B., 4 So.3d 513, 521 (Ala.Civ.App.2008); see generally Dean v. Dean, 998 So.2d 1060, 1066 (Ala.Civ.App. 2008); Pickett v. Pickett, 792 So.2d 1124, 1128 (Ala.Civ.App.2001).

2008D.C.S. v. L.B., 4 So.3d 513, 521 (Ala.Civ.App.2008); see generally Dean v. Dean, 998 So.2d 1060, 1066 (Ala.Civ.App. 2008); Pickett v. Pickett, 792 So.2d 1124, 1128 (Ala.Civ.App.2001).

2010Turner v. Clutts, 565 So.2d 92, 94 (Ala.1990); Odom v. Blackburn, 559 So.2d 1080 (Ala.1990).

1992"It is well established that this Court will not presume error and will affirm a judgment appealed from if it is supported on any valid legal ground." Turner v. Clutts , 565 So.2d 92 , 94 (Ala. 1990).

2016See Tucker v. Nichols, 431 So.2d 1263, 1265 (Ala.1983) (noting that appellant has affirmative duty of showing error upon the record and that this Court will not presume error).

1990Tucker v. Nichols , 431 So.2d 1263 (Ala. 1983).

2017Leasing Co. v. Graham , 532 So.2d 655 , 655 (Ala. Civ.

2011However, nothing in the record indicates that the circuit clerk makes selections in such a manner and nothing indicates that Knight’s motion was assigned to Judge Hobbs’s docket pursuant to option (2). 4 The majority, in reversing the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, has made two factual assumptions in favor of Knight, neither of which is supported by the record or asserted by Knight: that Judge Hobbs does not occupy the seat of the judge who sentenced Knight and that the circuit clerk exercised discretion in selecting Judge Hobbs to hear Knight’s motion. 5 Doing so runs afoul of the

2011See also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Goodman, 789 So.2d 166, 176 (Ala.2000) (“[W]e cannot assume error or presume the existence of facts as to which the record is silent.”).

2009Furthermore, “[a] trial court need not include a recital of findings of fact or conclusions of law in its final order unless a statute specifically requires it to do so.” Taylor v. Taylor, 387 So.2d 849, 852 (Ala.Civ.App.1980), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte McLendon, 455 So.2d 863, 866 (Ala.1984).

2009Furthermore, "[a] trial court need not include a recital of findings of fact or conclusions of law in its final *913 order unless a statute specifically requires it to do so." Taylor v. Taylor, 387 So.2d 849, 852 (Ala.Civ.App.1980), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte McLendon, 455 So.2d 863, 866 (Ala.1984).

2009Robinson v. State, 444 So.2d 884 (Ala.1983).” McCollough v. State, 678 So.2d 199, 200-01 (Ala.Crim.App.1995).

2009Furthermore, “[a] trial court need not include a recital of findings of fact or conclusions of law in its final order unless a statute specifically requires it to do so.” Taylor v. Taylor, 387 So.2d 849, 852 (Ala.Civ.App.1980), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte McLendon, 455 So.2d 863, 866 (Ala.1984).

2009Furthermore, "[a] trial court need not include a recital of findings of fact or conclusions of law in its final *913 order unless a statute specifically requires it to do so." Taylor v. Taylor, 387 So.2d 849, 852 (Ala.Civ.App.1980), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte McLendon, 455 So.2d 863, 866 (Ala.1984).

2001In Ex parte Veazey, 637 So.2d 1348, 1349 (Ala.1993), this Court held: "Where one reasonable view of the evidence supports the trial court's judgment, the judgment must be upheld, even if another, perhaps better reasoned, view of the evidence might have dictated a different outcome." Further, this Court has stated, "`In reviewing the judgment of a trial court, this Court will not presume error and will affirm the trial court's judgment if it is supported by any valid legal ground.'" McKenzie Methane v. M-W Drilling, 653 So.2d 982, 984 (Ala.1995), quoting Marvin's, Inc. v. Robertson, 608 So.2d 3

2001In Ex parte Veazey , 637 So.2d 1348 , 1349 (Ala. 1993), this Court held: "Where one reasonable view of the evidence supports the trial court's judgment, the judgment must be upheld, even if another, perhaps better reasoned, view of the evidence might have dictated a different outcome." Further, this Court has stated, "`In reviewing the judgment of a trial court, this Court will not presume error and will affirm the trial court's judgment if it is supported by any valid legal ground.'" McKenzie Methane v. M-W Drilling , 653 So.2d 982 , 984 (Ala. 1995), quoting Marvin's, Inc. v. Robertson , 608

2001See Boykin v. Magnolia Bay, Inc., 570 So.2d 639 (Ala. 1990).