Commonwealth v. Beavers
| Decision Date | 22 March 1928 |
| Citation | 150 Va. 33 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH ET ALS v. ALVIN BEAVERS. |
1. JUDGMENTS AND DECREES — Sentence — Lack of Jurisdiction — Judgment or Sentence Void — Collateral Attack. — Any judgment of a court is void if the court does not have jurisdiction of the person or of the subject matter, or if the court renders judgment beyond its power. Any judgment which is not founded upon these jurisdictional requirements is void, and subject to attack in collateral proceedings.
2. SENTENCE — Lack of Jurisdiction — Sentence Void — Charge of Unlawful Manufacturing of "Ardent Spirits" — Sentence for a Felony — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a habeas corpus proceeding, it was contended that the sentence of petitioner was void because the indictment only charged him with a misdemeanor, i.e., the unlawful manufacture of "ardent spirits" and the jury found petitioner guilty of a felony and the court entered judgment for a felony upon this verdict. The attorney who drafted the indictment intended to charge defendant with the commission of a felony; the grand jury intended to charge a felony, and the court, the attorney for the Commonwealth, and the attorney for the defendant all proceeded upon the theory that the trial was for a felony, and the charge was for a felony. Defendant was duly arraigned as in a felony case; a felony jury was empanelled, and a verdict and judgment for a felony rendered.
Held: That while this action of the court could not convert a misdemeanor into a felony if a clear misdemeanor had been charged, yet it was tantamount to and did amount to a judicial determination, acquiesced in by all parties, that defendant was charged with a felony; and while this was perhaps error, it only rendered the judgment voidable and not void, and could only be corrected upon writ of error.
3. CRIMINAL LAW — Estoppel — Inconsistent Positions Assumed by Defendant. — It is a well established principle that a defendant in a criminal proceeding cannot assume inconsistent positions in the trial and appellate courts. It is equally true that he cannot after his cause has been heard in the trial court and appellate court, assume a position thereafter inconsistent with the position he assumed in those courts.
4. INTOXICATING LIQUORS — Charge of Unlawful Manufacture of Ardent Spirits — Whether Judgment for Felony Void or Voidable — Law of the Case. — To say that since the decision in the Gimmell Case, 145 Va. 865, 134 S.E. 699, every judgment for felony rendered prior to that decision upon indictments charging simply the unlawful manufacture of "ardent spirits" is void, is inconceivable. It may be true that all the courts were in error in holding such indictments charged a felony, but such holding was the law of the case, subject to review for error, and did not render the judgment of the court void because it had no power to pronounce the judgment.
5. INTOXICATING LIQUORS — Charge of Unlawful Manufacture of Ardent Spirits — Whether Judgment of Conviction of Felony Void or Voidable — Law of the Case — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner on a charge of unlawfully manufacturing "ardent spirits" was convicted and sentenced for a felony. This action of the court upon the indictment was equivalent to a holding that the indictment charged a felony, and the affirmance of that judgment by the Supreme Court of Appeals under the circumstances was a holding by that court that the indictment charged a felony. On the trial of the habeas corpus proceeding the trial court assumed that petitioner was charged with and tried for a misdemeanor, and convicted of a felony. On the contrary he was charged with a felony, tried for a felony and convicted of a felony, and the fact that the Supreme Court of Appeals later in the Gimmell Case, 145 Va. 865, 134 S.E. 699, held that such an indictment did not charge a felony had no retroactive effect and the order of the circuit court in habeas corpus proceeding discharging petitioner from custody was erroneous and should be reversed.
Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Page county, in habeas corpus proceedings. Judgment for petitioner. Commonwealth assigns error.
The opinion states the case.
John R. Saunders, Attorney-General, Leon M. Bazile and Edwin H. Gibson, Assistant Attorneys-General, for the Commonwealth.
Robert A. Hutchison, for the defendant in error.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Page county, entered on the 17th day of June, 1927, in a habeas corpus proceeding wherein Alvin Beavers, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was the petitioner, and the Commonwealth of Virginia, R. M. Youell, Superintendent of the State Penitentiary, and C. A. Coleman, sergeant of convict camp No. 10, then located in Page county, hereinafter referred to as petitioners, were respondents. Alvin Beavers, the defendant, had been convicted on the 15th day of April, 1926, in the Circuit Court of Prince William county of a felony, for violation of the prohibition law and sentenced to three years in the penitentiary and to pay a fine of $100.00. Shortly after his conviction he applied for a writ of error to this court, which was denied him, and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed in every particular.
The defendant was sent to the penitentiary pursuant to his sentence and placed at hard labor in convict camp No. 10.
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleged in substance that the indictment upon which the defendant was tried charged him with the commission of a misdemeanor; that he was tried and convicted for a felony, and that in consequence, the judgment of conviction is void, and being void is subject to collateral attack by habeas corpus, and defendant is entitled to be released. The trial court took this view of the case and released the defendant from custody. A writ of error duly awarded petitioners brings this action of the circuit court before us for review.
It may be conceded at the outset that if the original judgment of the Circuit Court of Prince William county is void, either for lack of jurisdiction by that court of the person of the defendant, of the subject matter, or if it exceeded its powers in the judgment it rendered, the order of the circuit court in these proceedings should be affirmed. It is conceded that the Circuit Court of Prince William had jurisdiction of the defendant, and that it had jurisdiction to try any and all offenses against the prohibition law, but it is contended that the defendant was only charged with a misdemeanor (the indictment appears in the margin*) and that the jury found him guilty of a felony and the court entered judgment for a felony upon this verdict. It is argued that the court had no power to render this judgment and that hence it is void.
County of Prince Willian, to-wit;
In the Circuit Court of Prince William county:
The grand jurors in and for the body of said county of Prince William and now attending said court at its April term, 1926, upon their oaths, do present that Alvin Beavers on March 24, 1926, in said county of Prince William, did unlawfully manufacture ardent spirits, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Second count: And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do further present that the said Alvin Beavers on the said 24th day of March, 1926, in said county, did unlawfully have in his possession 2 barrels of mash, 1 dozen fruit jars, 2 barrels or tub fermenters, and other substances capable of being used in the manufacture of ardent spirits, without being registered with the Commissioner of Prohibition and obtaining from him a permit therefor, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Upon the evidence of: R. H. Duvall, J. T. L. Rollings, C. L. Reading, Jas. Harley.
Since the decision in Ex Parte Tobias Watkins, 3 Peters 193, 7 L.Ed. 650 (opinion by Chief Justice Marshall), to the effect that a court,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunter v. Com., 1692-90-3
...by the trial court, not the jury. See Jones v. Commonwealth, 184 Va. 679, 681, 36 S.E.2d 571, 572 (1946); Commonwealth v. Beavers, 150 Va. 33, 40, 142 S.E. 402, 404 (1928). Proof that a defendant is charged with a felony, without proof of the name or the nature of the felony, is sufficient ......
-
People v. Haywood
...571, 572 [whether the prior offense was a felony is a question of law to be resolved by the court, not the jury]; Commonwealth v. Beavers (1928) 150 Va. 33, 142 S.E. 402, 404 [same]; Hunter v. Commonwealth (1993) 15 Va.App. 717, 427 S.E.2d 197, 208 (conc. and dis. opn. of Barrow, J.) [same ......
-
Clark v. Com.
...having agreed upon the action taken by the trial court, should not be allowed to assume an inconsistent position. Commonwealth v. Beavers, 150 Va. 33, 142 S.E. 402 (1928). In addition, the response given by the trial court was a proper one. Hinton v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 492, 247 S.E.2d 70......
-
Coe v. Commonwealth, Record No. 3293-02-2 (Va. App. 3/2/2004)
...to assume an inconsistent position." Clark v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 201, 214, 257 S.E.2d 784, 792 (1979) (citing Commonwealth v. Beavers, 150 Va. 33, 142 S.E. 402 (1928)). The record here reflects that this is exactly what Coe attempts to do — to take advantage of his "own wrong." Sullivan,......