Frazier v. Langlois
| Decision Date | 26 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-M,94-M |
| Parties | Carl W. FRAZIER v. Harold V. LANGLOIS, Warden. P. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This case comes before us on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by Carl W. Frazier against Harold V. Langlois, Warden. The writ issued and pursuant thereto the pertinent records have been certified to this court.
The pertinent facts are as follows. On July 2, 1964, petitioner was convicted by a jury for the unlawful sale of narcotics in violation of G.L.1956, § 21-28-32, as amended. On October 7, 1964, after his motion for a new trial had been denied, petitioner was sentenced to 10 year imprisonment by a justice of te superior court. Execution of the sentence was stayed pending an appeal by petitioner who was released on bail of $3,000.
On August 11, 1965, petitioner was indicted for the commission of a similar offense. He was arraigned on August 12, 1965, with bail for this offense being set at $10,000 and bail for his prior offense being raised from $3,000 to $10,000. For want of bail petitioner, on August 12, 1965, was committed to the adult correctional institutions.
On April 21, 1966, petitioner was tried and convicted on the indictment of August 11, 1965; on November 17, 1966, he was sentenced to imprisonment for 22 years. His bill of exceptions to this conviction was overruled by this court on December 6, 1967. State v. Frazier, R.I., 235 A.2d 886.
The petitioner's bill of exceptions to his conviction on July 2, 1964, was overruled by this court on July 5, 1966, and a motion to reargue was denied on July 15, 1966. State v. Frazier, R.I., 221 A.2d 468, 473.
On August 2, 1966, the state presented petitioner to the superior court and contended that under § 21-28-32, as amended, he should have been sentenced to a minimum of 20 years rather than 10 years as had been imposed by the court on October 7, 1964. The justice of the superior court revoked his previous sentence and resentenced petitioner to 20 years imprisonment in the adult correctional institutions, to take effect as of August 12, 1965. The sole question before us is the validity of this 20-year sentence.
In opposition to the writ in question, the state notes that petitioner is presently serving a sentence for an offense separate and distinct from the one in question which will require his continued incarceration beyond the 20-year period of which he complains. It concludes that since his appeal from this conviction has been denied, it is apparent that a finding favorable to petitioner cannot effect his discharge from custody. It is maintained by the state that under deMello v. Langlois, 94 R.I. 497, 182 A.2d 116, habeas corpus does not lie when a finding favorable to the petitioner will not result in his immediate release from custody. Since there is merit in this contention, we shall treat this petition as one for certiorari. 1 It is stipulated by both parties that a sentence which is wholly void may be vacated by the court at any time, regardless of whether execution on the sentence has commenced. The petitioner, however, maintains that a sentence may be deemed void only where the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter involved in the prosecution or exceeds its own general jurisdiction. He contends that the superior court violated neither of these jurisdictional requirements; that, consequently, the 10-year sentence imposed upon him, although erroneous, was not void; that the court can set aside such a sentence before, but not after, execution of it has taken place; and that execution of such sentence began on August 12, 1965.
The state, on the other hand, alleges that execution of the 10-year sentence never commenced because of the fact that petitioner was committed only because he failed to post bail; and that even if petitioner be deemed to have served part of his sentence, such sentence is a nullity and, therefore, was rightfully set aside by the trial justice.
'The sentence for a shorter term than that prescribed by law did not exceed lawful authority in imposing it. * * *'
Hickman v. Fenton, 120 Neb. 66, 70, 231 N.W. 510, 512, 70 A.L.R. 819. See also Commonwealth v. Foster, 122 Mass. 317. Another line of cases, however, adopts the view set forth in United States v. Bozza, 155 F.2d 592, 595 (3d cir.), aff'd 330 U.S. 160,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powell, Matter of
...rel. Malinowski v. Casscles, 53 A.D.2d 954, 385 N.Y.S.2d 640 (1976); In re Bryant, 129 Vt. 302, 276 A.2d 628 (1971); Frazier v. Langlois, 103 R.I. 607, 240 A.2d 152 (1968). On the other hand, other jurisdictions will consider an application for relief as to an invalid sentence, even though ......
-
State v. Williams
...247, 250, 98 L.Ed. 248, 253-54 (1954); 2 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 582 at 552 (1969). See generally Frazier v. Langlois, 103 R.I. 607, 240 A.2d 152 (1968). Relief for this defendant under Rule 35 is therefore unavailable because certainly convictions of robbery and conspiracy......
-
State v. Burkhart
...235 (1967); State v. Culver, 23 N.J. 495, 129 A.2d 715 (1957); State v. Leathers, 271 Or. 236, 531 P.2d 901 (1975): Frazier v. Langlois, 103 R.I. 607, 240 A.2d 152 (1968); 168 A.L.R. 706, 719. Thus, the trial judge in the instant case had both the power, and the duty, to correct the judgmen......
-
Dixon v. State
... ... Fountaine, 199 Kan. 434, 430 P.2d 235; State v. Culver, 23 N.J. 495, 129 A.2d 715; State v. Leathers, 271 Or. 236, 531 P.2d 901; Frazier v. Langlois, 103 R.I. 607, 240 A.2d 152; 168 A.L.R. 706, 719. Thus, the trial judge in the instant case had both the power, and the duty, to correct ... ...