liberty immunity in Alabama

2005That a convict having only a short time remaining of his sentence would make an unwise choice by accepting such probation upon onerous conditions for a breach of which he might years after be remanded to complete his sentence affords no argument against the constitutional integrity of the enactment.' "[ Persall v. State ,] 31 Ala.App. [309,] 313, 16 So.2d [332,] 335 [(1944)](emphasis added)." Cannon v. State , 624 So.2d 238 , 239 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993) (some emphasis added).

1987In passing upon the First Amendment issues asserted by counsel for appellant, we are guided by the statement set forth in United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez , 521 F.2d 259 (1975) which states as follows: "This guiding interpretive principle plainly suggests the manner in which the Act's administration should be accommodated to the constitutional guarantees of the Bill of Rights.

1973One of these conditions is that his sentence shall continue in fieri, and that the State shall have the power to execute it in full upon him should he forfeit the liberty and immunity conditionally secured to him by the order . . . . ” Further, in Hamilton v. State, 43 Ala.App. 192 , 186 So.2d 108 , cert. denied 279 Ala. 687 , 186 So.2d 114 , the Court observed: “Probation does not operate to alter or set aside judgment.

1973One of these conditions is that his sentence shall continue in fieri, and that the State shall have the power to execute it in full upon him should he forfeit the liberty and immunity conditionally secured to him by the order . . . . ” Further, in Hamilton v. State, 43 Ala.App. 192 , 186 So.2d 108 , cert. denied 279 Ala. 687 , 186 So.2d 114 , the Court observed: “Probation does not operate to alter or set aside judgment.

1973One of these conditions is that his sentence shall continue in fieri, and that the State shall have the power to execute it in full upon him should he forfeit the liberty and immunity conditionally secured to him by the order . . . . ” Further, in Hamilton v. State, 43 Ala.App. 192 , 186 So.2d 108 , cert. denied 279 Ala. 687 , 186 So.2d 114 , the Court observed: “Probation does not operate to alter or set aside judgment.

1973One of these conditions is that his sentence shall continue in fieri, and that the State shall have the power to execute it in full upon him should he forfeit the liberty and immunity conditionally secured to him by the order . . . . ” Further, in Hamilton v. State, 43 Ala.App. 192 , 186 So.2d 108 , cert. denied 279 Ala. 687 , 186 So.2d 114 , the Court observed: “Probation does not operate to alter or set aside judgment.

1962Pinkerton v. State, 29 Ala.App. 472 , 198 So. 157 (where the board attempted to revoke a parole where the aggregate time in and out had expired — there having been before expiry no delinquency determined under § 12), patently does not apply here.

1962Pinkerton v. State, 29 Ala.App. 472 , 198 So. 157 (where the board attempted to revoke a parole where the aggregate time in and out had expired — there having been before expiry no delinquency determined under § 12), patently does not apply here.

1962One of these conditions is that his sentence shall continue in, fieri,, and tfiat the governor shall have the power to execute it * * * upon him should he forfeit the liberty and immunity conditionally secured to him * * See also the able opinion of Mr. Justice Simpson (when serving on this court) in Summers v. State, 31 Ala.App. 264 , 15 So. 2d 500 .

1962One of these conditions is that his sentence shall continue in, fieri,, and tfiat the governor shall have the power to execute it * * * upon him should he forfeit the liberty and immunity conditionally secured to him * * See also the able opinion of Mr. Justice Simpson (when serving on this court) in Summers v. State, 31 Ala.App. 264 , 15 So. 2d 500 .