In re Nottingham
Decision Date | 28 May 1928 |
Docket Number | 12099. |
Citation | 268 P. 587,84 Colo. 123 |
Parties | In Re NOTTINGHAM. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 18, 1928.
Department 2.
Error to District Court, Garfield County; John T. Shumate, Judge.
Application by G. C. Nottingham for a writ of habeas corpus, prayed to be directed to the Sheriff. Judgment quashing the writ, and petitioner applies for supersedeas.
Judgment affirmed.
C. W Darrow and Sadie H. Korn, both of Glenwood Springs, for plaintiff in error.
Wm. L Bostright, Atty. Gen., Wm. W. Gaunt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Frank Delaney, Dist. Atty., of Glenwood Springs, for the people.
Error to a judgment quashing a writ of habeas corpus sued out by G. C. Nottingham.
An information was filed in the county court of Garfield county charging Nottingham with carrying concealed weapons. On May 4, 1927, Nottingham pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for six months 'from this date.' The court, at the same time, undertook, without any objection on the part of Nottingham, to suspend sentence during good behavior, by adding to the sentence these words:
On January 24, 1928, in the same court, a jury found Nottingham guilty of assault and battery, and the court sentenced him to pay a fine of $10 and the costs of the proceeding. At the same time the court made a finding in the former case to the effect that Nottingham had 'violated the terms and provisions of his parole,' and ordered that he be confined in jail for the period of the sentence theretofore imposed. A mittimus was issued, and Nottingham was taken into custody. On his application to the district court, there was issued a writ of habeas corpus, directed to the sheriff. The sheriff made his return; Nottingham replied thereto; whereupon the sheriff moved to quash the writ, which motion the court sustained.
The question that we are urged to decide is whether or not, on the showing made, Nottingham is lawfully held in custody. As nothing short of a decision of that question will finally and satisfactorily dispose of this case, we will pass without discussion the question whether or not the district court has the power to discharge from custody a person convicted of a misdemeanor in a court having co-ordinate jurisdiction in misdemeanor cases, and will proceed to determine the case on its merits. Assuming, as Nottingham contends, that the district court has such power, the facts disclosed by the record do not entitle him to a discharge from custody.
1. The attempted stay of execution during good behavior is void. Counsel for the people and counsel for the defendant claim that such is the law; and, although there is a conflict among the authorities, the rule above stated is supported, we believe, by the better reason and by the weight of authority. See 8 R.C.L. p. 253, and 16 C.J. p. 1333, citing many cases.
The words 'attempting to suspend sentence,' as was said in Neal v. State, 104 Ga. 509, 30 S.E. 858, 42 L.R.A. 190, 69 Am.St.Rep. 175, 'are of no legal force, and consequently should be ignored, and the sentence executed just as if they did not appear' in the sentence. This is not a case of indefinite postponement of the time to pass sentence. Nottingham was sentenced; it was only the execution of the sentence that was postponed. Grundel v. People, 33 Colo. 191, 79 P. 1022, 108 Am.St.Rep. 75, therefore, has no application to this case.
2. The invalidity of the attempt to suspend execution of the sentence does not affect the validity of the sentence of imprisonment; that sentence may be enforced even after the expiration of the court term, and even after the expiration of six months from the date of sentence, which was the time of imprisonment specified in the sentence. In 16 C.J. p. 1335, the rule is stated thus:
And see Morgan v. Adams, 226 F. 719, 141 C.C.A. 475; State v. Abbott, 87 S.C. 466, 70 S.E. 6, 33 L.R.A. (N. S.) 112, Ann.Cas. 1912B, 1189; Spencer v. State, 125 Tenn. 64, 140 S.W. 597, 38 L.R.A. (N. S.) 680; In re Lujan, 18 N.M. 310, 137 P. 587; Neal v. State, 104 Ga. 509, 30 S.E. 585, 42 L.R.A. 190, 69 Am.St.Rep. 175.
In Fuller v. State, 100 Miss. 811, 57 So. 806, 39 L.R.A. (N. S.) 242, Ann.Cas. 1614A, 98, the court said:
In the present case, it may be said of Nottingham, as was said of the defendant in Fuller v. State, supra:
'The postponement of his imprisonment was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Sonner v. Shearin
...Oster v. Municipal Court, 45 Cal.2d 134, 139, 287 P.2d 755 (1955); People v. Burke, Colo., 521 P.2d 783, 785 (1974); In re Nottingham, 84 Colo. 123, 125, 268 P. 587 (1928); Ziegler v. District of Columbia, 71 A.2d 618, 619 (D.C.Mun.App.1950); McMahon v. Mayo, 92 So.2d 806, 810 (Fla.1957); R......
-
O'MALLEY v. Hiatt
...P. 142; Ex parte Rice, 48 Okl.Cr. 28, 289 P. 360; Ex parte Williams, 1938, 63 Okl.Cr. 395, 75 P.2d 904, at page 909; In re Nottingham, 1928, 84 Colo. 123, 268 P. 587, 588; Egbert v. Tauer, 191 Ind. 547, 132 N.E. 370, 134 N.E. 199; State v. Abbott, 87 S.C. 466, 70 S.E. 6, 8, 33 L.R.A., N.S.,......
-
People v. Hinchman
...133 Colo. 115, 292 P.2d 340 (1956); People ex rel. Carroll v. District Court, 106 Colo. 89, 101 P.2d 26 (1940); In re Nottingham, 84 Colo. 123, 268 P. 587 (1928), the People have raised a jurisdictional question and no notice of cross-appeal was required. See C.A.R. 1(d); Crim.P. While this......
-
People v. Ray
...to suspend the imposition or execution of a sentence. See, e.g., Grundel v. People, 33 Colo. 191, 79 P. 1022 (1905); In Re Nottingham, 84 Colo. 123, 268 P. 587 (1928); State v. Wright, 202 N.W.2d 72 (Iowa 1972); State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 85 Nev. 485, 457 P.2d 217 (1969); State v. Dore......