Allen v. Hall
| Decision Date | 22 May 1906 |
| Citation | 95 S.W. 415,196 Mo. 226 |
| Parties | ALLEN v. HALL, Warden. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Rev. St. 1899, § 2383, provides that, where any convict shall commit any crime while under sentence, the court having jurisdiction of criminal offenses shall have jurisdiction. A person was convicted of crime and sentenced to the penitentiary. While awaiting the adjournment of the court, he was confined in the county jail, where he committed a crime. Held, that a court having jurisdiction of the offense had jurisdiction to try him at that term of court.
2. SAME—PUNISHMENT—SENTENCE.
Rev. St. 1899, § 2383, provides that, where a convict shall commit any crime while under sentence, the sentence of the convict on his conviction shall not commence to run until the expiration of the sentence under which he may be held. One convicted of crime and sentenced to the penitentiary committed a crime while confined in the county jail. On his conviction of such crime, the court sentenced him to the penitentiary for a term from the expiration of the former sentence. Held, that the second sentence was sufficient, and, if the first sentence was shortened, the second sentence would commence on the expiration of the first sentence.
Application by Leck Allen for a writ of habeas corpus against Matt. W. Hall, warden of the penitentiary. Writ denied.
Lewis C. Gabbert, for petitioner. The Attorney General and N. T. Gentry, for respondent.
The petitioner made his application at this term for a writ of habeas corpus, directed to the warden of the state penitentiary and prayed for an order releasing him from further confinement in said institution. On the 14th day of June, 1902, the petitioner was lawfully sentenced by the criminal court of Buchanan county to the state penitentiary for a term of five years, from the 12th day of June, 1902, and was then remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Buchanan county to be by him conveyed to the penitentiary at the end of the said term of said court. While awaiting the adjournment of said court, the petitioner was confined in the common jail of said county and on the 9th of July, 1902, by force and by means of dynamite and powder attempted to release and set at liberty the prisoners then in custody in said jail. Thereupon on the 11th day of July, 1902 the prosecuting attorney of said county filed an information in said criminal court charging petitioner with the crime of attempting to release said prisoners and petitioner was duly arraigned on said charge and pleaded guilty thereto and was sentenced to a "term of five years in the penitentiary from the 12th day of June, 1907, when his former sentence ends." Thereupon prisoner was committed to the penitentiary by virtue of the two sentences, and having served three-fourths of the said first sentence for robbery, and having been an exemplary prisoner, is entitled to a discharge from the unexpired portion of said first term; and, this being conceded, he asserts he is entitled also to be discharged from his imprisonment altogether, because he insists that his second conviction for attempting to break jail and release the prisoners therein was illegal and void, because the criminal court had no jurisdiction to try him for said offense at that term, and, secondly, that, if the judgment and sentence was not void for want of jurisdiction, still he is entitled to his discharge because in law the said second sentence commenced to run on the day it was imposed, and has been concurrent all the time with the first sentence, and he is entitled to the benefits of the three-fourths rule as to this second sentence also, and both sentences expired April 11, 1906. In his return, the warden concedes that petitioner has been a well-behaved prisoner and he is willing to give him the benefit of the three-fourths rule as to the first sentence, but is holding him under the second sentence.
1. Was the court without jurisdiction to try defendant for the second offense, committed after he had been tried and convicted of robbery and while he was awaiting the adjournment of the court at that term to be conveyed to the penitentiary? We have no hesitancy in holding it was not. It was a court of criminal jurisdiction and had jurisdiction to hear and determine the offense of which petitioner was convicted, and over the person of petitioner. The contention of petitioner is based upon certain statutory provisions of our laws and decisions of this court, and the question is has he properly construed the statutes and d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Billings v. Rudolph
...a sanctuary for crime. No immunity has been given a convict. State ex rel. v. Breuer, 304 Mo. 381; State v. Connell, 49 Mo. 282; Ex parte Allen, 196 Mo. 226. (4) The overwhelming weight of authority holds that a convict undergoing sentence may be prosecuted upon indictments for felony commi......
-
State ex rel. Billings v. Rudolph
...a sanctuary for crime. No immunity has been given a convict. State ex rel. v. Breuer, 304 Mo. 381; State v. Connell, 49 Mo. 282; Ex parte Allen, 196 Mo. 226. (4) The weight of authority holds that a convict undergoing sentence may be prosecuted upon indictments for felony committed prior to......
-
The State ex rel. Meininger v. Breuer
...corpus case, and what the court said was pertinent to that question and, therefore, not obiter dictum. First, this court held (Ex parte Allen, 196 Mo. 226) that this not the true construction of the decision in State v. Buck, 120 Mo. 479, which is founded upon and purports to follow the Mey......
-
State v. Breuer
...convicted and sentenced upon trial for an offense committed prior to such previous sentence, but has heretofore (Ex parte Allen, 196 Mo. loc. cit. 232, 95 S. W. 415) pointed out the difference between its previous rulings and the ruling sought in this case. It seems appropriate carefully to......