Hill v. State
| Decision Date | 29 July 1957 |
| Citation | 304 S.W.2d 619,6 McCanless 416,202 Tenn. 416 |
| Parties | , 202 Tenn. 416 Charles Ray HILL v. STATE of Tennessee. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
M. S. Ross, Nashville, for plaintiff in error.
James M. Glasgow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This case involves the revocation of a suspended sentence. The defendant, Charles Ray Hill, was convicted of a series of larcenies on November 15, 1949, and sentenced to the State penitentiary for 5 years. The trial judge, however, ordered that the sentence of 5 years be served in the Davidson County workhouse and that it be suspended.
On August 30, 1954, the District Attorney General, Hon. J. Carlton Loser, filed a petition in Division II of the Criminal Court of Davidson County seeking a revocation of the aforesaid suspended sentence. This petition, duly verified, charged the following:
'Your Petitioner wishes to show further unto the Court that subject had been convicted of larceny before coming into your Honor's Court and that he has had convictions since his sentence was suspended, all of which is reported by the Hon. Fred Newman, Parole Officer for this County.'
The prayer of the petition is that the defendant be served with a copy of the petition requiring him to appear and answer and show cause, if any, why said suspended sentence should not be revoked. Pursuant to the filing of this petition, the court ordered a capias to issue for the arrest of Hill and that he be placed in custody pending a hearing on the petition. This order was issued on August 30, 1954.
On September 15, 1954, the court ordered another capias to issue. The next entry on the minutes of the court, as of October 4, 1956, is as follows:
'Came the Attorney General who prosecutes for the State.
'Thereupon, it is ordered by the Court that this case be and the same is hereby placed on the retired docket.'
On November 26, 1956, the following entry appears:
'Came the Attorney General who prosecutes for the State and the defendant in custody.
'Thereupon, a petition to revoke defendant's suspended sentences heretofore filed by the Attorney General was on this date served upon the defendant, giving him statutory notice, being a fugitive from justice since August of 1954.
'Mr. Monty Ross, represents the defendant.'
On December 11, 1956, the defendant filed a motion that the State make its petition more specific. It seems that this motion was never brought to the attention of the trial judge. The defendant filed an answer to the petition on January 11, 1957, denying all the charges in the petition and specifically denied that he had even been convicted of any crime since the suspension of his sentence. He denied also that he had violated the terms of his parole.
The principal defense made to the petition is that the five year suspended sentence expired on November 26, 1954, and the court was without any legal authority to order a revocation.
The trial judge ordered a revocation of the suspended sentence and that said defendant be committed to the workhouse for a period of 5 years. A motion for a new trial was made and overruled, resulting in this appeal. The only question for our consideration is whether or not the statute of limitations barred the proceedings for revocation of this sentence.
It was expressly held in McGuire v. State, Tenn., 292 S.W.2d 190, 193, that Section 40-2906, T.C.A., is 'a statute of limitations and the same is tolled the same as any other act containing a limitation of power.' This case differs from the case at bar in this respect. The notice to McGuire of the revocation proceeding was within one year from the original conviction and order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Allen
...the trial court speaks through its minutes, they are prima facie evidence of what occurred in the trial court. See Hill v. State, 304 S.W.2d 619, 622 (Tenn. 1957) (holding that "the minutes of the court should accepted as prima facie true" in the absence of any direct evidence to the contra......
-
State v. Clark, s. 20100372
...a motion to revoke, or sending the court a copy of the supervisor's report and asking for a revocation hearing); Hill v. State, 202 Tenn. 416, 304 S.W.2d 619 (1957) (court had jurisdiction to revoke because petition was filed and warrant was issued even though they had not been served becau......
-
State v. Tyler
...was no evidence offered to impeach the minutes. In the absence of such evidence, the minutes are accepted as true. Hill v. State, 202 Tenn. 416, 304 S.W.2d 619 (1957). O'BRIEN and SCOTT, JJ., ...
-
Allen v. State
...could only be given by serving the warrant on the defendant. The basis for the court's decision rests primarily on Hill v. State, 202 Tenn. 416, 304 S.W.2d 619 (1957), wherein we said in dictum that Hill differed from McGuire, supra, because of It is clear, however, that Hill and McGuire ar......