Calloway v. State
Decision Date | 09 December 1940 |
Docket Number | 4181 |
Citation | 145 S.W.2d 353,201 Ark. 542 |
Parties | CALLOWAY v. STATE |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Madison Circuit Court; J. W. Trimble, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Jack Holt, Attorney General, and Jno. P. Streepey, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
March 6, 1934, appellant, Connie Calloway, entered a plea of guilty, in the Madison circuit court, to the crime of assault with the intent to kill. The court assessed his punishment at ten years in the state penitentiary, with the provision however, that the sentence should be suspended pending appellant's good behavior. Appellant was then allowed his liberty and no further action taken in the matter until December 12, 1939, when the prosecuting attorney of the district filed a petition praying that the order suspending sentence be set aside, that appellant be sentenced to the penitentiary, and final judgment entered.
Thereafter upon a hearing on this petition before the court, from the testimony of witnesses, the court made the following findings:
The court then revoked the order suspending appellant's sentence and proceeded to sentence him for a term of one year, in the state penitentiary and "that pronouncement of sentence of the remaining nine years be suspended until further orders of this court." It is from this order of the court that this appeal comes. No brief has been filed on behalf of appellant.
The question here involved is the power of the circuit court to determine whether a person who has been given a suspended sentence, may thereafter be tried, his suspended sentence revoked, and sentence imposed.
We think it clear under the provisions of §§ 4053-4054 of Pope's Digest that such power is vested in the circuit court. These sections are as follows:
Section 4053. "Whenever, in criminal trials in circuit court, a plea of guilty shall have been accepted or a verdict of guilty shall have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Boyd
...questioned." For other cases sustaining this view reference is made to Brozosky v. State, 197 Wis. 446, 222 N.W. 311; Calloway v. State, 201 Ark. 542, 145 S.W.2d 353; People v. Lippner, 219 Cal. 395, 26 P.2d People v. Wheeler, 349 Ill. 230, 181 N.E. 623; People ex rel. Pasco v. Trombly, 173......
-
State v. Robinson
...State v. Johnson, 230 N.C. 743, 55 S.E.2d 690; State v. Marsh, supra; Slayton v. Com., supra; Pritchett v. U. S., supra; Calloway v. State, 201 Ark. 542, 145 S.W.2d 353. This Court said in State v. Davis, supra [243 N.C. 754, 92 S.E.2d 178], speaking of a hearing as to whether a suspended s......
-
Slayton v. Commonwealth
...67 F.2d 244, 245; Neely v. United States, 5 Cir., 151 F. 2d 533; State v. Marsh, 225 N.C. 648, 36 S.E.2d 244, 245; Calloway v. State, 201 Ark. 542, 145 S.W.2d 353, 354. To put the matter another way, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain an order of revocation is a matter within the so......
-
Ellerson v. State
...matter cannot be reviewed in the absence of gross abuse of discretion. Fortner v. State, 255 Ark. 38, 498 S.W.2d 671; Calloway v. State, 201 Ark. 542, 145 S.W.2d 353; Jones v. State, 252 Ark. 477, 479 S.W.2d 548. Of course, it would be an abuse of discretion to exercise the discretion to re......