Bohannon v. District of Columbia, 1368.

Decision Date13 October 1953
Docket NumberNo. 1368.,1368.
Citation99 A.2d 647
PartiesBOHANNON v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
CourtD.C. Court of Appeals

Alonzo Bohannon, appellant, pro se.

Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corp. Counsel, with whom Vernon E. West, Corp. Counsel, and Chester H. Gray, Principal Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.

HOOD, Associate Judge.

Appellant was convicted of failing to yield the right of way after stopping at a stop sign.1 He was sentenced to pay a fine of $10 or in default thereof to serve ten days. His motion for a new trial was granted. He was then tried before another judge who found him guilty and imposed a sentence of $100 or thirty days. He moved for a new trial, alleging, among other things, that he had a witness who would corroborate his testimony. At the hearing on this motion the court announced: "In a hearing on this motion we will have a trial." Thereupon testimony was received from the arresting officer, the appellant and his witness. When the testimony was completed the court, after stating that the testimony of appellant's witness added nothing to the defense, denied the motion.

Appellant has brought this appeal in proper person and it is rather difficult to understand all the errors assigned. As there is in the record no transcript of testimony or statement of evidence relating to the trial itself, we cannot consider the errors claimed to have occurred at trial. We do have before us transcript of testimony at the hearing on the motion for new trial. As the granting or denial of a motion for new trial rests in the discretion of the trial court, we have before us with respect to that hearing only the question of abuse of discretion. We find none.

At oral argument before us the appellant conceded that his chief complaint was that the fine imposed was unreasonable. The fine could have been as high as $300,2 so that the fine of $100 was well within the legal limits. "The penalty imposed, being within the limits prescribed by law, is not subject to appellate control." Gaston v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 34 A.2d 353, 358, affirmed, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 37, 143 F. 2d 10, certiorari denied, 322 U.S. 764, 64 S.Ct. 1286, 88 L.Ed. 1591. An appellate court may interfere with a penalty within the limits prescribed by law only when it is clear that such penalty is cruel and unusual. Richards v. United...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • North Carolina v. Pearce Simpson v. Rice
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 23 Junio 1969
    ...329, 208 So.2d 238 (1968); Kohlfuss v. Warden of Connecticut State Prison, 149 Conn. 692, 183 A.2d 626 (1962); Bohannon v. District of Columbia, 99 A.2d 647 (D.C.Mun.Ct.App.1953); Salisbury v. Grimes, 223 Ga. 776, 158 S.E.2d 412 (1967); State v. Kneeskern, 203 Iowa 929, 210 N.W. 465 (1926);......
  • Foster v. United States
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • 21 Abril 1972
    ...for such review, we hold we may not do so. See Stovall v. United States, D.C.App., 202 A.2d 390 (1964); Bohannon v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 99 A.2d 647 (1953); Gaston v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 34 A. 2d 353 (1943), aff'd, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 37, 143 F.2d 10 (1944). Our interven......
  • State v. Squires
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 1 Agosto 1966
    ...first trial.' Among the cases directly in point, decided adversely to the contention of the appellants, are the following: Bohannon v. D.C., Mun.App., 99 A.2d 647; Sanders v. State, 239 Miss. 874, 125 So.2d 923, 85 A.L.R.2d 481; Hobbs v. State, 231 Md. 533, 191 A.2d 238, cert. den. 375 U.S.......
  • State v. White, 654
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 20 Mayo 1964
    ...v. State, 239 Miss. 874, 125 So.2d 923, 85 A.L.R.2d 481; Bohannon v. District of Columbia, Mun.Ct. of Appeals of the District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 99 A.2d 647; 24 C.J.S. Criminal Law § In Hobbs v. State, supra, a case directly in point, the Court of Appeals of Maryland correctly state......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT