Goodman v. Storey
| Decision Date | 08 December 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 4716,4716 |
| Citation | 254 S.W.2d 63,221 Ark. 308 |
| Parties | GOODMAN v. STOREY, Sheriff. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Ivan Williamson and Ben B. Williamson, Mountain View, for petitioner.
Ike Murry, Atty. Gen., and Wm. M. Moorhead, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Petitioner seeks to review the action of the trial court in refusing his release from prison on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He was charged in a justice of the peace court with illegal cohabitation and also . The defendant was represented by counsel, and there was a plea of guilty to both charges. A fine of $100 and costs was assessed but suspended on the illegal cohabitation charge, and a fine of $100 and costs, and a suspended six month jail sentence, were imposed on the liquor selling charge. Later, petitioner got into further trouble, and the suspended sentences were revoked. He then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in circuit court, seeking his release from prison.
It is not necessary at this time to discuss the authority, or lack of authority, of the justice of the peace to suspend any part of the sentences.
It is the contention of petitioner that he was charged with selling liquor in a dry territory and that the penalty, as provided by Ark.Stats. § 48-803, applies but that no jail sentence can be assessed for a first offense under that section, and, furthermore, that he has paid the fines and costs assessed against him. It developed at the hearing in the habeas corpus proceedings in circuit court that the petitioner had paid the fine in the liquor case and the costs in both cases, but the fine in the alleged cohabitation case had not been paid. Moreover, he was not committed to jail until July 5th, and filed a petition for habeas corpus July 11th, hence he could have served only a few days of the six month jail sentence.
The liquor charge, as it appears on the docket of the justice of the peace, is as follows: . Sec. 48-912 obviously refers to that section of Ark.Stats. which provides: 'Any person who shall sell, barter, exchange or give any intoxicating alcoholic liquor without having a valid license as provided by this act * * * shall, in addition to losing his license, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be fined not less than fifty ($50.00) dollars, nor more than five hundred ($500.00) dollars, or imprisoned for not exceeding six (6) months, or both so fined and imprisoned in the discretion of the court or jury.' At the time of the plea of guilty a penalty, authorized by Sec. 48-912, was imposed. The court had jurisdiction to assess a penalty under either Sec. 48-803 or Sec. 48-912; and the court had jurisdiction of the defendant. If the justice of the peace imposed a sentence authorized by Sec. 48-912, and the defendant claimed he pleaded guilty to a charge for which Sec....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simpson v. Sheriff of Dallas County, Ark.
...errors and irregularities at the trial." Mitchell v. State, 233 Ark. 578, 581, 346 S.W.2d 201, 203 (1961). See Goodman v. Storey, Sheriff, 221 Ark. 308, 254 S.W.2d 63 (1952). Mr. Simpson is, however, in a position different from the habeas petitioner ordinarily encountered. He has not been ......
-
Mitchell v. State ex rel. Henslee
...that was not or could not have been raised on appeal except the allegation of present insanity. Thus the languge in Goodman v. Storey, 221 Art. 308, 254 S.W.2d 63, 64, is applicable 'In Brandon, Ex Parte, 49 Ark. 143, 4 S.W. 452, the court said: '* * * an application for habeas corpus canno......
- Crittenden v. Lytle
-
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Taylor
...is entered has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties thereto, such judgment is voidable but not void.Goodman v. Storey, 221 Ark. 308, 254 S.W.2d 63 (1952) (quoting Ex Parte O'Neal, 191 Ark. 696, 87 S.W.2d 401 (1935) ). As appellee has raised no question regarding the circuit co......