Layman v. Hudspeth
| Decision Date | 31 January 1947 |
| Docket Number | 36768. |
| Citation | 176 P.2d 527,162 Kan. 445 |
| Parties | LAYMAN v. HUDSPETH, Warden. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
A court has no authority, after a valid judgment and sentence have been rendered in a criminal case and served in part, to set the sentence aside, hear additional evidence and impose a new sentence during the same term or thereafter. Following Parks v. Amrine, 154 Kan. 168, 117 P.2d 586.
Ernest N. Yarnevich, of Kansas City, for petitioner.
H. R Fatzer, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Ed. F. Arn, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for respondent.
In this habeas corpus case counsel for the petitioner and for the respondent agree upon the following facts which the record discloses. On June 16, 1934, the petitioner appeared in court after his plea of guilty to the offense of grand larceny and was sentenced to be confined in the State Penitentiary at Lansing, Kansas at hard labor for a period of not less than five and not more than fifteen years and to pay the costs of his prosecution. There is no controversy about the validity of that judgment. The petitioner was not taken to the penitentiary forthwith but was taken to the county jail and while there was guilty of malicious destruction of property consisting in part of the breaking of all the windows in the jail. The county attorney, on the date of the original sentence, to-wit: June 16, 1934, had known that the petitioner had been convicted of a felony theretofore but had not at such time advised the court relative thereto. After the misconduct in the jail occurred the county attorney caused the defendant to be brought again before the court on June 18, 1934, which was during the same term of court, and on such occasion, for the first time advised the court of the prisoner's former conviction and of the petitioner's conduct while he was confined in jail. As a consequence thereof, the original sentence of June 16, 1934, was set aside and revoked and the petitioner was sentenced for a term of not less than ten nor more than thirty years and to pay the costs of his prosecution. The petitioner contends that the second sentence was unlawful and void. Counsel associated with the office of the former Attorney General, A. B Mitchell, after making a full investigation of the facts in the case, conclude in their brief as follows: '* * * the sentence rendered by the District Court on June 18, 1934 is null and void and we feel further that it is incumbent upon the state in a case wherein it finds that the facts and the law are in favor of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richardson v. Hand
...to a valid sentence. 15 Am.Jur., Criminal Law, § 477; 168 A.L.R. 706; State v. O'Keith, 136 Kan. 283, 15 P.2d 443; Layman v. Hudspeth, 162 Kan. 445, 176 P.2d 527; State v. Looney, In some jurisdictions a distinction is made between the correction of a void sentence and the correction of a s......
-
State v. Lyon, 46106
...even though this be done at the same term of court.' (Syl. $2.) See, also, State v. Carte, 157 Kan. 139, 138 P.2d 429; Layman v. Hudspeth, 162 Kan. 445, 176 P.2d 527. The purported sentence of April 8, 1970, being void, the court had no authority to grant probation to the defendant on June ......
-
Chambers v. State
...for the prisoner. * * *' Neither of the two cases cited by the petitioner on this point sustains his position. In Layman v. Hudspeth, 162 Kan. 445, 176 P.2d 527, the sentence which the court originally imposed was a valid sentence and this court correctly held that a valid sentence may not ......
-
State v. Frye
...release because the maximum time of the first sentence, which was a valid sentence, had not yet expired. A later case, Layman v. Hudspeth, 162 Kan. 445, 176 P.2d 527, adopted the rationale of Parks. Here the defendant was sentenced to a term of not less than five nor more than fifteen years......