Ex parte Turner
| Decision Date | 31 January 1870 |
| Parties | Ex parte CHARLES TURNER. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Petition for habeas corpus.
Lay & Belch, for petitioner.
H. B. Johnson, Attorney-General, for respondent.
Charles Turner, an inmate of the penitentiary, applies for a writ of habeas corpus, and represents that he is imprisoned under two sentences of the Criminal Court--one for three and one for two years, the period of the first having expired. Both judgments were rendered upon the same day, and after the convictions in both cases, and their terms are alike and general, neither of them specifying the time when the imprisonment should commence. The following is the language of the statute under which the officers of the State claim the right to hold the prisoner during his second term: “When any person shall be convicted of two or more offenses, before sentence shall have been pronounced upon him for either offense, the imprisonment to which he shall be sentenced upon the second or other subsequent conviction shall commence at the termination of the term of imprisonment to which he shall be adjudged upon prior conviction.” (Wagn. Stat. 513, § 9.)
In Ex parte Meyers, 44 Mo. 279, this court held that a prisoner could not be held upon his second term of imprisonment when judgment was pronounced after conviction and sentence upon the first term. For an exposition of the above section and of the duty of the court under it, see that case and cases therein cited.
The prisoner, Turner, now claims that inasmuch as the judgments under which he is and has been confined do not specify the time when the imprisonment should commence, each term should be held to begin at the same time, and consequently that he has served his full period. But the statute does not require it, and it is not the practice for each sentence to specify the day of the commencement of the imprisonment. He is sentenced, and the time of imprisonment is designated according to the assessment by the jury, and the law decides when the term shall commence; and when he is convicted and sentenced for two offenses, the law also expressly decides when the second term shall begin, and it is wholly unnecessary for the court to decide it. The court can not do so with any certainty, for the prisoner may be discharged by pardon or otherwise from his confinement under the first conviction, and in that case the second term should at once begin.
The writ is refused.
The other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Huff
... ... Mo.App. 21; State v. Ramsburger, 106 Mo. 135, 17 ... S.W. 290; State v. Emry, 18 S.W.2d 10; State v ... Matticker, 22 S.W.2d 647; Ex parte Dickinson, 132 S.W.2d ... 243. (2) The court erred in refusing to give the ... defendant's instruction in the nature of a demurrer at ... the ... it described, as a part of such sentence.' See also Ex ... parte Durbin, 102 Mo. 100, 14 S.W. 821; Ex parte Turner, 45 ... Mo. 331." ... The ... citation referred to in the quote is State ex rel ... Meininger v. Breuer, 304 Mo. 381, 264 S.W ... ...
-
The State ex rel. Meininger v. Breuer
... ... Gilbert & Wolfort for relator ... (1) ... Sec. 3697, R. S. 1919, was construed in Ex parte Meyers, 44 ... Mo. 282, and the court there held that under this section a ... defendant could not be tried after sentence, at a subsequent ... nature of one of the arguments advanced. Ex parte Meyers, ... supra, was decided in 1869. In 1870 the case of Ex parte ... Charles Turner, 45 Mo. 331, was before the court. Turner was ... convicted on the same day on two separate charges, but was ... not sentenced on either until ... ...
-
State v. Huff
...sentence, in the kind of cases it described, as a part of such sentence.' See also Ex parte Durbin, 102 Mo. 100, 14 S.W. 821; Ex parte Turner, 45 Mo. 331." The citation referred to in the quote is State ex rel. Meininger v. Breuer, 304 Mo. 381, 264 S.W. 1. The sentences in this case should,......
-
State v. Harris
...sentence, in the kind of cases it described, as a part of such sentence." [See, also, Ex parte Durbin, 102 Mo. 100, 14 S.W. 821; Ex parte Turner, 45 Mo. 331.] In instant case the court evidently overlooked or misconstrued Section 4456, supra, resulting that the defendant received sentences ......