Campbell v. State

• Decision Date: 16 October 1946
• Docket Number: A-10614.
• Parties: CAMPBELL v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

173 P.2d 584

83 Okla.Crim. 108

CAMPBELL v. STATE.

No. A-10614.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

October 16, 1946

Appeal from County Court, Garfield County; Paul Edwards, Judge.

Kenneth Elmer Campbell pleaded guilty of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and from the judgment and sentence imposed, he appeals.

Modified and affirmed as modified.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Under statute (47 O.S.1941 § 294) a court of record must after final conviction of a motorist in such court for the crime of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, require the motorist to surrender to it all operator's or chauffeur's licenses possessed by him and forward them to the Commissioner of Public Safety.

2. Trial court does not exceed its authority and is not inflicting unauthorized punishment when it requires convicted motorist to surrender his driver's license to be forwarded by said court to the Commissioner of Public Safety.

3. Imposition of jail sentence and fine against first offender upon plea of guilty to charge of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor is reduced to fine where defendant in mitigation of punishment shows that he has never been arrested for any offense, that he has a good reputation for sobriety and being a law-abiding citizen, that he is a farmer with several head of livestock, that he has a large farm and no one to assist in carrying on his farming duties, together with the fact that there was no accident involved in the alleged offense, and counsel for state agree that fine is sufficient punishment under facts of case.

Willis and Manning, of Fairview, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q Williamson, Atty. Gen., J. Walker Field, Asst. Atty., Gen for defendant in error.

JONES Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment and sentence imposed upon him when he entered his plea of guilty in the County Court of Garfield County to the offense of driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

The defendant entered his plea of guilty on December 12, 1944 and the trial court thereupon fixed January 16, 1945, as the date for pronouncing judgment and sentence. On the latter date, the defendant through his counsel stated that he desired to offer evidence in mitigation of punishment, and the court thereupon permitted him to do so. The defendant testified that he had never been arrested before in his life or charged with any offense. That he lives with his widowed mother and farms 160 acres of land. That he has two brothers serving in the armed forces of the United States, and that he was the sole person to carry on the farming duties. That he has several milk cows which he milks daily and sells the cream.

The defendant then introduced the testimony of several witnesses who testified that they were neighbors of defendant and had known him for several years. That his general reputation in the community where he resides for being a moral, sober and up-right citizen was good. That the defendant, in the absence of his brothers in the army, had the sole duty of farming 160 acres of land and caring for a 69 year old widowed mother.

At the conclusion of the evidence offered on behalf of defendant, the county attorney made a statement to the court as to the facts surrounding the alleged offense as reported to him by the arresting officer. These facts were that the arresting officer saw the defendant pull on to Highway 81; that the car wobbled from one side of the road to the other, and that when defendant was stopped he was observed to be drunk. There was no accident involved.

At the close of the evidence, the trial court stated: 'On the showing made here, the court certainly is inclined to make the judgment and sentence the minimum. This Court has, ever since this type of case was tried in the County Court followed a policy which I think is based on good public policy, of requiring in this type of cases that the defendant serve some time in jail. I do that for the reason I think it has a much stronger deterrent effect than a mere fine. A person can pay a fine; he is more likely to commit such an offense again than if he had to spend some time in jail. I am not inclined to make it a long jail sentence, but taking into consideration the fact he is operating a farm out here, I think he could make arrangements for the chores to be done for a short time; taking in consideration these facts, the Court will make this a minimum sentence. The defendant,...