Crutchfield v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 01 March 1948 |
| Citation | 187 Va. 291,46 S.E.2d 340 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | CRUTCHFIELD . v. COMMONWEALTH. |
Error to Corporation Court of the City of Lynchburg; S. DuVal Martin, Judge.
Henry Crutchfield was convicted of felonious and unlawful wounding, and he brings error.
Judgment reversed and case remanded.
Before HUDGINS, C. J., and GREGORY, EGGLESTON, SPRATLEY, BUCHANAN, STAPLES, and MILLER, JJ.
W. A. Hall, Jr., of Richmond, for plaintiff in error.
Harvey B. Apperson, Atty. Gen., and Henry T. Wickham, of Richmond, for the Commonwealth.
On October 7, 1946, Henry Crutch-field, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was indicted under the maiming act, Virginia Code 1942 (Michie) section 4402. The indictment charged that he "in and upon one Dorothy Crutchfield feloniously did make an assault and her, the said Dorothy Crutchfield then and there unlaw-fully, felonious and maliciously did stab, cut and wound with intent then and there, the said Dorothy Crutchfield, to maim, disfigure, disable and kill * * *." Under this indictment the defendant could have been found guilty of any felony or misdemeanor substantially charged therein, that is to say, he could have been convicted of (1) a malicious wounding with intent to maim, disfigure, disable and kill; (2) of unlawful wounding with the same intent; or (3) of simple assault and battery. Each of these crimes was charged in the indictment. Williams v. Commonwealth, 153 Va. 987, 151 S.E. 151.
On October 14, 1946, Crutchfield was tried in the Corporation Court of the city of Lynchburg. The record of the proceedings upon his trial is recited in the following order and judgment entered on that date:
No appeal from the judgment was noted. In accordance therewith, the defendant was delivered to the custody of the Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary. On April 3, 1947, the defendant presented to the Circuit Court of the city of Richmond his petition praying for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, alleging that the sentence imposed upon him by the Corporation Court of the city of Lynchburg was void, as being in excess of the punishment which could have been imposed upon him upon his plea of guilty to "unlawful assault, " a misdemeanor. A writ of habeas corpus was issued. In answer to the petition and writ, the Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary admitted the invalidity of the order under which he held Crutchfield because of the imposition of a three years sentence for a felony.
Thereafter, on April 25, 1947, the Circuit Court of the city of Richmond adjudged "that the sentence for three years is a nullity." The Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary was ordered to release Crutchfield from custody under the order of October 14, 1946. It was further ordered that the defendant be delivered to the custody of the Sergeant of the city of Lynchburg "for such action as the Commonwealth may be advised in connection with the trial of said Henry Crutchfield before the Corporation Court of the city of Lynchburg on the indictment returned against him at the October term, 1946."
On May 15, 1947, before the Corporation Court of the city of Lynchburg, the Commonwealth's Attorney of that city, in the presence of the defendant, moved the court that ." A copy of the record of the habeas corpus proceedings was introduced in evidence.
The defendant objected to the motion, and moved the court to proceed to impose only a proper sentence for conviction of "unlawful assault." The defendant further contended that if the proceedings, trial, etc, as shown in the order of October 14, 1946, should be adjudged void and null, then more than four terms of the court had elapsed since the return of the indictment against him, and he was entitled to be discharged under the provisions of Virginia Code 1942 (Michie) section 4926.
The court overruled the motions of the defendant and adjudged the proceedings, trial, conviction, judgment, sentence and commitment, as set forth in the order of October 14, 1946, as null and void. It then ordered that Crutchfield be placed upon his trial upon the indictment of October 7, 1946, limiting and restricting the trial to no higher offense than the felonious and unlawful stabbing, cutting, and wounding of Dorothy Crutchfield, with intent to maim, disfigure, disable and kill her, as charged in the said indictment. To this action the defendant duly excepted.
The defendant filed, in writing, a plea of former jeopardy, verified by affidavit, which the court overruled and rejected.
On his trial, June 9, 1947, the defendant pleaded not guilty to the indictment. After the evidence and argument of counsel were heard, the jury found the defendant guilty of unlawful wounding as charged in the indictment and fixed his punishment at four years in the penitentiary. A motion to set aside the verdict as contrary to the law and the evidence was overruled and the defendant was sentenced in accordance with the verdict of the jury. Thereafter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Boner v. Boles
... ... 619, 91 Am.Dec. 546; Richardson v. Hand, 182 Kan. 326, 320 P.2d 837; Lee Lim v. Davis, 75 Utah 245, 284 P. 323, 76 A.L.R. 460; Crutchfield v. Commonwealth, 187 Va. 291, 46 S.E.2d 340; Jessup v. Commonwealth, 185 Va. 610, 39 S.E.2d 638. See also 15 Am.Jur., Criminal Law, Sections 443 and ... ...
-
Starrs v. Commonwealth
... ... Relying on Kibert, the Commonwealth argues that a guilty plea “ ‘accepted and entered by the court[ ] is a conviction or the equivalent of a conviction of the offense to which it is directed.’ ” 216 Va. at 664, 222 S.E.2d at 793 (quoting [752 S.E.2d 818] Crutchfield v. Commonwealth, 187 Va. 291, 296, 46 S.E.2d 340, 342 (1948)). Thus, the Commonwealth contends that the circuit court had no authority to do anything other than impose the punishment prescribed by law. As the Commonwealth asserts, we have held that “ ‘a voluntary and ... ...
-
Knight v. Johnson, Civ. A. No. 80-0916-R.
... ... During argument on these motions, a dispute arose as to the waiver of a jury in the case. Petitioner was willing to waive but the Commonwealth refused to join in the waiver. See Va.Code § 19.2-257 (Repl. Vol. 1975). Petitioner's counsel, Richard Ryder, expressed concern that jury sentencing ... Kibert v. Commonwealth, supra, at 664, 222 S.E.2d 790, 793; Peyton v. King, 210 Va. 194, 196, 169 S.E.2d 569, 571 (1969); Crutchfield v. Commonwealth, 187 Va. 291, 296, 46 S.E.2d 340, 342 (1948); Hobson v. Youell, supra, at 912, 15 S.E.2d 76, 78 (1941). Such a plea is a ... ...
-
Charles v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0616-03-1 (VA 7/20/2004)
... ... Where the sentence imposed is in excess of that prescribed by law, that part of the sentence which is excessive is invalid. Crutchfield v. Commonwealth, 187 Va. 291, 297, 46 S.E.2d 340, 343 (1948). A sentence in excess of one prescribed by law is not void ab initio because of the excess, but is good insofar as the power of the ... court extends, and is invalid only as to the excess. Royster v. Smith, 195 Va. 228, 236, 77 S.E.2d ... ...