PRICE, Presiding Judge.
This appellant was convicted of possessing prohibited alcoholic beverages.
Trial was had by the court without the intervention of a jury. The judgment entry of May 10, 1962, the date of trial, shows the following:
The entry of June 11, 1962, reads:
On July 10, 1962, a motion for a new trial was filed. Said motion was regularly continued until December 1, 1962, when it was overruled.
The transcript of the evidence was filed with the circuit clerk on the 25th day of January, 1963. The entire record was filed in this court on March 19, 1963.
The Attorney General has filed a motion to strike the transcript of the testimony and the transcript of the record because not timely filed. It is insisted the motion for a new trial was filed more than thirty days after judgment, on May 10, 1962.
The time for filing motion for a new trial begins to run on the date of the formal adjudication of guilt, not the date of the jury verdict or the finding of the court on the facts when the trial is had without a jury. Burton v. State, 39 Ala. App. 230, 97 So.2d 164.
The judgment entry clearly shows defendant was not formally adjudged guilty until June 11, 1962. The motion for new trial was filed within thirty days thereafter.
The Attorney General's motion is not well taken, and is hereby denied.
The state's witnesses testified they did not see the defendant pick up anything and did not know before the search that he had any whiskey on his person. No member of the Brown family was at home. A search was made of the premises but no whiskey was found.
No testimony was presented in defendant's behalf.
The officers had a purported search warrant authorizing the search of "a frame residence on west side of highway U. S. #43 North beyond Shoals Creek." The affidavit supporting the warrant was unsigned. Sec. 212, Title 29, Code of Alabama 1940.
The foregoing evidence clearly demonstrates the search of defendant's person was plainly illegal. Dennis v. State, 40 Ala.App. 182, 111 So.2d 21. Timely and specific objection was interposed to the admission of the evidence thereby obtained.
While the courts of this state have formerly held that illegally obtained evidence, except evidence obtained by means of an illegal search of a private dwelling, Section 210, Title 29, Code, was admissible in the trial of a criminal case, Shields v. State, 104 Ala. 35, 16 So. 85; Banks v. State, 207 Ala. 179, 93 So. 293, 24 A.L.R. 1359; Dennis v. State, supra, the Supreme Court of the United States has said that evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution of the United States is inadmissible in a state court. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 84 A.L.R.2d 933. The evidence pointed out was inadmissible under Mapp v. Ohio, supra.
There is no necessity for ordering a new trial since there could be no admissible evidence under which a conviction could be based.
Reversed and rendered.