Dillingham v. Com.
| Citation | 249 S.W.2d 827 |
| Parties | DILLINGHAM v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Decision Date | 06 June 1952 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
William F. Bennett, Owensboro, for appellant.
J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Zeb A. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Anna Louise Dillingham has filed motion for an appeal from a judgment sentencing her to 90 days in jail on a charge of involuntary manslaughter. The indictment charged her with contributing to the death of Ronald Hope, a two-year old child, by surreptitiously abandoning her duties as a 'baby sitter' and going out on a date with a soldier. During her absence the house in which Ronald and his sister, age 21 months, were asleep caught fire and the children suffocated.
No supersedeas bond was executed and it appears from the record that appellant has served the jail sentence pronounced by the court. The Attorney General has filed motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. In response to the motion, appellant states she is now in jail in default of bond on an indictment charging her with the death of Ronald's sister, and it is suggested that we should write an opinion in this case for the benefit of the circuit court in the trial of the other case.
Clearly, the case is moot. Since appellant has already satisfied the sentence of the court, we could make no order on this appeal which would affect her status. We cannot remit the jail sentence already served, and even if we should decide the sentence should not have have been imposed, and opinion could not afford appellant any effectual relief in this case.
This Court has always adhered to the fundamental policy that it has no mandate from the Constitution or the Legislature to engage in the discussion of purely academic or moot questions. The rule is based on the historical premise that it is the duty of courts to try actual controversies between litigants, and not to disseminate gratuitous advice. The possibility that a gratuitous opinion might be of assistance in future litigation does not change the rule or minimize the reason for the rule.
If appellant is convicted on the indictment now pending, the statute provides an adequate method by which she may bring her case to this Court for review. If, as stated by counsel, she cannot comply with the terms of the statute as to execution of an appeal bond, the answer is that an appeal is a privilege and not an inherent right. As a condition precedent to the exercise of the privilege, the litigant must comply with the statute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moeller v. Solem
...conviction or sentence. 9 A.L.R.3d 482 (1968). See also Henry v. State, 148 Ga.App. 712, 252 S.E.2d 179 (1979); Dillingham v. Commonwealth, 249 S.W.2d 827 (Ky.Ct.App.1952); Bennett v. State, 289 A.2d 28 (Me.1972); Belton v. Vitek, 113 N.H. 183, 304 A.2d 362 (1973); State v. Foy, 153 N.J.Sup......
-
Ward v. Commonwealth, No. 2007-CA-000753-MR (Ky. App. 7/18/2008), 2007-CA-000753-MR
...of the wanton murder statute would be speculative or academic in nature, a discussion is not warranted. See Dillingham v. Commonwealth, 249 S.W.2d 827, 828 (Ky. 1952). Ward also challenges the constitutionality of KRS 507.040(1), which provides that a person is guilty of second-degree mansl......
-
State v. Carper
...the length of the sentence is little more than a gratuitous imprimatur, because of mootness of the sentence issue. See Dillingham v. Commonwealth, 249 S.W.2d 827 (Ky.1952). It will be recalled that Carper was given thirty days in confinement, to be served concurrent with a sentence already ......
-
Bailey v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2007-CA-001963-MR (Ky. App. 2/6/2009)
...an issue that has been rendered moot by the fact that Bailey has satisfied his sentence on this conviction. See Dillingham v. Commonwealth, 249 S.W.2d 827, 828 (Ky. 1952); Henry v. Commonwealth, 586 S.W.2d 304, 306 (Ky. App. The judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court is affirmed, and the m......