Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 10 July 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. A-12468,A-12468 |
| Citation | 314 P.2d 362 |
| Parties | Louis BROWN, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where the jury declares punishment in their verdict within limitation fixed by law, trial court must render judgment according to verdict. 22 O.S.1951 §§ 926, 927, 928.
2. Statutes must be construed so as to give effect to the legislative intent, and the legislative intent must be sought in the ordinary meaning of the words in the statute,
construed in view of the connection in which they are used, and of the evils to be remedied.
3. By reason of the conclusion reached in paragraph 1 of this syllabus, Held, trial court may not in its judgment add a fine up to $200 in addition to term of imprisonment fixed by the verdict of jury.
4. Statutes in apparent conflict should be construed, if reasonably possible, to allow both to stand and be effective.
5. 21 O.S.1951 § 64 by its very wording permits only the court to impose a fine on the offender not exceeding $200, in addition to the imprisonment prescribed, where the statute under which the charge was filed did not provide for a fine, but construing the various statutory provisions together (22 O.S.1951 §§ 926, 927 and 928, and 21 O.S.1951 § 64) and attempting to give each force and effect where not in conflict, Held that such authority is granted the trial court only and under the circumstances where (1) a jury has been waived and the case is tried to the court; (2) where the jury fails or refuses to assess the penalty; or (3) on a plea of guilty by defendant.
Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County; Leslie Webb, Judge.
Louis Brown was convicted of the crime of rape in the first degree, after former conviction of a felony, and appeals. Judgment and sentence found to be defective, and case remanded with directions to trial court to correct judgment and sentence in keeping with the verdict of jury; and as so corrected, the case is affirmed.
Vernon A. Brown, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
This is an appeal by transcript from the district court of Tulsa County, wherein the plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was tried before a jury and convicted of the crime of first degree rape, after former conviction of a felony. He was sentenced by verdict of a jury to a term of fifteen years in the State Penitentiary at McAlester. The court in entering judgment added a fine of $200.
While the evidence is not before us, it is alleged in the information that the defendant had previously been convicted of the crime of assault with intent to rape, and sentenced to serve a term of four years; and that he had thereafter been convicted of the crime of grand larceny and sentenced to serve a term of one year. And in the within case, it is alleged that the rape of the victim was accomplished by means of force and fear. The jury might have assessed the death penalty (21 O.S.1951 § 1115), but they chose to be lenient by assessing the minimum penalty. The trial court, under such circumstances, in the apparent belief that the evidence justified a much greater penalty, in addition to the prison term assessed the fine, acting, no doubt, under the provisions of 21 O.S.1951 § 64, which provides:
'Upon a conviction for any crime punishable by imprisonment in any jail or prison, in relation to which no fine is herein prescribed, the court may impose a fine on the offender not exceeding two hundred dollars in addition to the imprisonment.'
The penalty provisions for rape, 21 O.S.1951 § 1115, do not include a fine. And the above statutory enactment is the only authority the court could have for adding the fine of $200. 1
Counsel for the defendant asserts that the trial judge was wholly without lawful authority to add to the penalty imposed by the jury. And in support of such argument, our attention is called to 22 O.S.1951 § 926, reading:
'In all cases of a verdict of conviction for any offense against any of the laws of the State of Oklahoma, the jury may, and shall upon the request of the defendant assess and declare the punishment in their verdict within the limitations fixed by law, and the court shall render a judgment according to such verdict, except as hereinafter provided.'
The 'hereinafter provided' clause refers to the next two succeeding sections of Title 22, which read:
§ 927. 'Where the jury find a verdict of guilty, and fail to agree on the punishment to be inflected, or do not declare such punishment by their verdict, the court shall assess and declare the punishment and render the judgment accordingly.'
§ 928. 'If the jury assess a punishment, whether of imprisonment or fine, greater than the highest limit declared by law for the offense of which they convict the defendant, the court shall disregard the excess and pronounce sentence and render judgment according to the highest limit prescribed by law in the particular case.'
This court has uniformly held that the judgment and sentence of the court must conform to the verdict of the jury. See Young v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 82, 239 P.2d 1042; Beam v. State, 66 Okl.Cr. 14, 89 P.2d 372; White v. State, 42 Okl.Cr. 50, 275 P. 1067; Bean v. State, 77 Okl.Cr. 73, 138 P.2d 563.
In paragraph 1 of the syllabus in the Young case we said:
'Where the jury declares punishment in their verdict within limitations fixed by law, trial court must render judgment according to the verdict, since only Criminal Court of Appeals has right to modify sentence meted out to an accused.'
In the body of the opinion we said:
'It is elementary that where a verdict of the jury assessing the punishment is in conformity with the law, the court must enter judgment and sentence in conformity to the verdict, and where there is a variance between the verdict of the jury and the sentence of the court, on appeal this court will remand the case with directions to the trial court to correct its judgment and sentence to make it conform to the verdict.'
The problem developed is that to hold that the court in the within case had authority to assess the fine of $200 in the face of the fact that the jury had fixed the punishment and within the provisions of the law as given to them by the court in its instructions, would, it is evident, be contrary to the principle announced in the Young and many other cases, and with 22 O.S.1951 § 926 above quoted.
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma, has said that two statutes in apparent conflict should be construed, if reasonably possible, to allow both to stand and be effective. Shimonek v. Tillman, 150 Okl. 177, 1 P.2d 154. And see Ex parte Neighbors, 85 Okl.Cr. 183, 187 P.2d 276; Kirsch v. Tracy, 174 Okl. 489, 55 P.2d 428, and Wagner v. Swan, 162 Okl. 95, 19 P.2d 555.
This court has also said that the legislative intent should be sought in the ordinary meaning of the words of a statute, construed in view of the connection in which they are used, and of the evil to be remedied. Wilkins v. State, 70 Okl.Cr. 1, 104 P.2d 289; Curtis v. State, 78 Okl.Cr. 282, 147 P.2d 465; State v. Sandfer, 93 Okl.Cr. 228, 226 P.2d 438; Falter v. Walker, 47 Okl. 527, 149 P. 1111.
Keeping the above principle in mind, and going gack to 21 O.S.1951 § 64, above quoted, it is noticeable that only the court is authorized to impose a fine not exceeding $200, in a case where a statute does not provide for a fine in addition to imprisonment. Nothing is said about a jury having such authority. We hold that the jury does not have such authority. The trial court must have so considered, because the jury was not instructed that it might also assess a fine not exceeding $200.
The question for determination is whether the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mayes v. State
...verdict and are without authority to modify the punishment assessed by the jury in pronouncing judgment upon the conviction"); Brown v. State, 314 P.2d 362 (1957) (same); Bean v. State, 77 Okl.Cr. 73, 138 P.2d 563 (1943) (same). Because the sentence set by the jury will be the sentence impo......
-
Williams v. State
...jury or the trial court must be within the limits of the statutory provisions governing the particular crime charged. See, Brown v. State, Okl.Cr., 314 P.2d 362 (1957). Since the Legislature has now provided but one sentence for the offense of First Degree Murder, the appropriate inquiry is......
-
State v. Hammond
...be sought in the ordinary meaning of the words of a statute, construed in view of the connection in which they are used. Brown v. State, 314 P.2d 362, 365 (Okl.Cr.1957). The court may look to each part of the same, to other statutes upon the same or relative subjects, and to the natural or ......
-
Fite v. State
...a fine, the fine provision of § 64 is applicable. Section 64 authorizes the "court" to impose the fine, not the jury. In Brown v. State, 314 P.2d 362, 366 (Okl.Cr.1957), this Court concluded the language in § 64 1 limiting the authority to impose the fine to the court ran afoul of 22 O.S., ......