Knowles v. State

• Decision Date: 26 February 1927
• Parties: KNOWLES v. STATE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

290 S.W. 969

155 Tenn. 181

KNOWLES v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

February 26, 1927

Error to Circuit Court, Sumner County; J. D. G. Morton, Judge.

Jake Knowles was convicted of embezzlement, and he brings error. Reversed and remanded.

C. H Rutherford, of Nashville, for plaintiff in error.

The Attorney General, for the State.

CHAMBLISS J.

Plaintiff in error was trustee of his county, and pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with embezzlement of $54,432.91 of tax funds. His punishment was fixed at not less than 5 nor more than 15 years in the state prison. Of this he complains on the ground that no evidence was introduced upon which the jury might base the exercise of discretion in determining the period of punishment. The bill of exceptions shows that, when the case was first called for trial on the 22d of September a continuance was had upon the agreement that, unless settlement should be made before October 2d, following, a plea of guilty would be entered. It appears that both the presiding judge and Attorney General understood it to be agreed also that a sentence of from 5 to 20 years would be accepted, but, upon the calling of the case on October 2d counsel for the defendant disclaimed having so understood the agreement, and insisted that the determination of the punishment should be submitted to the jury. Thereupon the plea of guilty was entered and counsel for the state and the defendant addressed and the judge charged the jury. Some discussion was had before the jury of the disagreement as to the term of punishment, but the judge properly charged that they were to disregard this matter.

However as before stated, no evidence was introduced. The jury, after hearing the charge, returned their verdict assessing the punishment.

Shannon's Code, § 7174, is as follows:

" Plea of Guilty.--Upon the plea of guilty, when the punishment is confinement in the penitentiary, a jury shall be impaneled to hear the evidence and fix the time of confinement, unless otherwise expressly provided by this Code."

We have no reported case deciding the question thus presented, but the provision that upon a plea of guilty a jury shall be impaneled to hear the evidence and fix the time of confinement in felony cases seems clearly to indicate a purpose to vest in the jury the power to exercise a sound discretion impossible of intelligent exercise without a hearing of at least such of the...