Gabriel v. Brame, 36263.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Citation | 28 So.2d 581,200 Miss. 767 |
| Decision Date | 13 January 1947 |
| Docket Number | 36263. |
| Parties | GABRIEL v. BRAME, Sheriff. |
28 So.2d 581
200 Miss. 767
GABRIEL
v.
BRAME, Sheriff.
No. 36263.
Supreme Court of Mississippi
January 13, 1947
[28 So.2d 582]
[200 Miss. 768] Harold F. Crain and Cecil A. Rogers, both of Meridian, for appellant.
[200 Miss. 769] Greek L. Rice, Atty. Gen., and Geo. H. Ethridge, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
[200 Miss. 772] GRIFFITH, Justice.
At the August 1945 Term of the circuit court of Lauderdale County appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of willful trespass. The penalty for this offense as fixed by Section 2406, Code 1942, is a fine of not exceeding five hundred dollars, or imprisonment not longer than six months in the county jail or both--there being no prescription of a minimum sentence. Acting under the provisions of Section 2541, Code 1942, the court imposed the maximum penalty, but suspended all of it except ninety days in jail, conditioned that the convict would not violate the law in the future. After serving his ninety days, the convict was released under his bond.
On March 16, 1946, the district attorney filed with the court a petition in the nature of an information, under Section 2543, Code 1942, that since his release as aforesaid the convict had been guilty of burglary, and the court was requested to revoke the suspension and to require the remainder of the sentence as imposed to be put into execution. A hearing on this information was had in vacation at which hearing the convict was present, and an order was entered in accordance with the prayer of the information filed as aforesaid.
[200 Miss. 773] Upon his reincarceration under the order last mentioned, the convict presented to the court his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that Sections 2541 and 2543, Code 1942, commonly known as the suspension of sentence statutes, are unconstitutional as being an intrusion upon the pardoning power vested solely in the governor under Section 124, Constitution of 1890. The petition in habeas corpus was denied.
The question presented has been debated in a large number of cases in other states. In a considerable majority of the jurisdictions the contention here urged by appellant has been rejected, although there is a respectable minority to the contrary. The cases in an adequate number are cited or annotated under State v. Starwich, 119 Wash. 561, 206 P. 29, 26 A.L.R. 393, 399, and Montgomery v. State, 231 Ala. 1, 163 So. 365, 101 A.L.R. 1394, 1402. We concur in what has been held by the majority and that the challenged statutes are not in conflict with the Constitution. See particularly Richardson v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v. State
...specified by statute constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, it will not be disturbed by the judiciary."); Gabriel v. Brame , 200 Miss. 767, 773, 28 So. 2d 581, 583 (1947) ("[T]he authority to say what constitutes a crime, and what punishment shall be inflicted, is in its entirety a legis......
-
Jackson v. State, 49178
...and prescribe the punishment therefor is a legislative function. Justice Griffith, writing for this Court in Gabriel v. Brame, Sheriff, 200 Miss. 767, 28 So.2d 581 (1947), stated this truism as Two propositions are fundamental, as we think, the first of which is that punishment for crime ha......
-
Wilson v. State, 2015–KA–00066–SCT.
...this state is vested entirely in our Legislature. Purely and simply, our Legislature fixes the punishments for crimes. Gabriel v. Brame, 200 Miss. 767, 773, 28 So.2d 581, 583 (1947) ; Howell v. State, 300 So.2d 774, 780 (Miss.1974) ; Upshaw v. State, 350 So.2d 1358, 1360 (Miss.1977). There ......
-
Meeks v. State, 89-KA-1080
...well, are free to define crimes and prescribe punishments. See Upshaw v. State, 350 So.2d 1358, 1360 (Miss.1977); Gabriel v. Brame, 200 Miss. 767, 773, 28 So.2d 581, 582 (1947). It holds, however, that the courts may not impose for one de jure offense more than lawfully the prescribed punis......