Kitchens v. State
| Decision Date | 18 June 1908 |
| Docket Number | (No. 1,115.) |
| Citation | 61 S.E. 736,4 Ga.App. 440 |
| Parties | KITCHENS. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Appeal and Error—Payment of Fine— Dismissal.
Where it appears that a plaintiff in error, who has been convicted in a criminal case (and upon whom an alternative sentence, permitting the payment of a fine, has been imposed), has voluntarily complied with the sentence of the court by payment of the fine, this court will not review the judgment of conviction. The court will not consider the record in any case where it is shown that the parties have settled their controversy or that the judgment has been satisfied. In such a case the writ of error will be dismissed.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 15, Criminal Law, §§ 2575, 2617, 2974.]
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from City Court of Ashburn; W. A. Hawkins, Judge.
Martin Kitchens was convicted of crime, and brings error. Dismissed.
R. L. Tipton, for plaintiff in error.
J. A. Comer, Sol., and Crum & Jones, for the State.
The plaintiff in error filed a bill of exceptions, assigning error on the dismissal of his motion for new trial. Counsel for the defendant in error moves to dismiss the exceptions, upon the ground that the plaintiff in error had voluntarily and without protest paid the fine imposed by the court as an alternative to the term which he had been sentenced to serve in the chain-gang upon the public works, and had also paid costs in the court below. The ground of the motion to dismiss the writ is properly verified, and the fact that the sentence of the lower court has been complied with is undisputed.
As "courts do not settle moot questions, or deal with fictitious litigation, nor proceed to judgment where it is shown that the parties have settled their controversy, or that the judgment has been satisfied, " the writ of error will be dismissed. Upon this subject, see White v. City of Tifton, 1 Ga. App. 569, 57 S. E. 1038, in which we hold that "a defendant, who has paid a fine imposed by a police court, with the alternative of imprisonment, cannot, after paying such fine, prosecute a writ of error to review the judgment, unless the fine was paid under protest and under duress." See, also, Brown v. Atlanta, 123 Ga. 497, 51 S. E. 507. The rule is the same in criminal as in civil cases. It has uniformly been held in this state that the appellate court will not investigate anddecide the abstract questions involved in a case, where the substance of the controversy has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kowalski v. State, 52319
...as of May 5 1976, he had paid $300 to the court. The State contends that this appeal is therefore moot, and we agree. In Kitchens v. State, 4 Ga.App. 440, 61 S.E. 736 this court considered for the first time the appeal of a criminal defendant, upon whom was imposed an alternative sentence p......