Ex parte Goucher

Decision Date17 May 1894
PartiesEX PARTE GOUCHER.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Application by Joseph Goucher for a writ of habeas corpus. Granted.

COLEMAN J.

On the 27th of March, 1894, the petitioner was tried and convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentenced to hard labor for the county for 12 months. Whether the sentence was authorized by the verdict of the jury we will not now consider. On the 16th of April, following, the petitioner applied to the judge of the circuit court for the writ of habeas corpus, which was denied. The grounds of the refusal of the writ of habeas corpus, as shown by the judgment thereon, are that petitioner applied for and obtained an order, at the time of his conviction, granting him 30 days within which to "prepare a bill of exceptions for an appeal to the supreme court, and the thirty days not having expired by thirteen days." The facts stated in the petition for the writ are admitted to be true. Without undertaking to state them in detail or fully, it appears that petitioner was in the custody of the sheriff, and had not been delivered to the superintendent of hard labor for Dale county, or the person designated as the proper person to whom convicts should be delivered when sentenced to hard labor for the county. It also appeared that the contract for the hire of convicts for Dale county expired on the 1st day of April 1894; and since that time no order, contract, or provision for the disposition of convicts had been made by the court of county commissioners. The trial of the petitioner, verdict of the jury, and sentence of the law pronounced by the court upon the verdict of the jury are made an exhibit to the petition. These show that no question of law which should appear of record was reserved by the petitioner during his trial. No bill of exceptions had been prepared and signed by the court. The court made no order by which the execution of the sentence of the law was suspended. Code, §§ 4511, 4508, 4510. The sentence of the law went into immediate operation and should have been executed according to its mandate. This question was fully considered and settled in the case of Ex parte Knight, 61 Ala. 482. If the court had made an order suspending the execution of the sentence, we would have for consideration a different question. When a party has been sentenced to hard labor for the county, or to suffer imprisonment in the penitentiary, a sheriff must not detain the convict for an unreasonable length of time in the county jail. Any unreasonable detention entitles the prisoner to be discharged, by reason of a "subsequent act, omission, or event." Ex parte King, 82 Ala. 59, 2 So. 763; Ex parte Crews, 78 Ala. 457. According to the record, there was no proper person to receive convicts sentenced to hard labor for Dale county. Certainly, this neglect or omission of duty by the court of county commissioners would not authorize the sheriff to detain...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Wade v. State, 4 Div. 526.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • November 28, 1939
    ......335, 108 So. 612; Steele v. State, 61 Ala. 213; Herrington v. State, 87 Ala. 1, 5 So. 831;. Zaner v. State, 90 Ala. 651, 8 So. 698; Ex parte. Simmons, 62 Ala. 416, 417; Ex parte Goucher, 103 Ala. 305, 15. So. 601; Ex parte Brown, 102 Ala. 179, 15 So. 602;. Robinson v. State, 6 Ala.App. ......
  • Green v. State, 8 Div. 328.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • May 9, 1944
    ......App. 335, 108 So. 612; Steele v. State, 61 Ala. 213; Herrington v. State, 87 Ala. 1, 5 So. 831; Zaner v. State, 90. Ala. 651, 8 So. 698; Ex parte Simmons, 62 Ala. 416, 417; Ex. parte Goucher, 103 Ala. 305, 15 So. 601; Ex parte Brown, 102. Ala. 179, 15 So. 602; Robinson v. State, 6 Ala.App. ......
  • Rogers v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • July 21, 1919
    ...the sentence is for one year, or less, it must be to hard labor for the county. Ex parte Brown, 102 Ala. 179, 15 So. 602; Ex parte Goucher, 103 Ala. 305, 15 So. 601; Evans v. State, 109 Ala. 11, 19 So. 535; Ex Thomas, 113 Ala. 1, 21 So. 369; Minto v. State, 9 Ala.App. 95, 64 So. 369. For th......
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • February 5, 1929
    ...... which fails to fix the punishment is incomplete, and should. not be received by the court. Dentler v. State, 112. Ala. 70, 20 So. 592; Ex parte Goucher, 103 Ala. 305, 15 So. 601. . . We know. of no law which authorizes the court to fix the punishment in. cases of this ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT