Mims v. State

• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Gilfillan, C. J.
• Citation: Mims v. State, 26 Minn. 498, 5 N.W. 374 (Minn. 1880)
• Decision Date: 20 April 1880
• Parties: Charles R. Mims v. State of Minnesota. (2d Case.)

5 N.W. 374

26 Minn. 498

Charles R. Mims v. State of Minnesota. (2d Case.)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

April 20, 1880

Writ of error to the district court for McLeod county.

Davis O'Brien & Wilson, for plaintiff in error.

Geo. P Wilson, Attorney General, for the State.

OPINION

Gilfillan, C. J.

In this case the plaintiff in error was convicted upon an indictment for embezzling state moneys, having just before been convicted upon an indictment for embezzling county funds. Upon the conviction in this case he was sentenced to be confined at hard labor in the state prison for a period of one year, and pay a fine of $ 9,412.88, and stand convicted until that fine is paid; the sentence to commence at the determination of the sentence on the conviction under the indictment for embezzling county funds, rendered the same day. There are raised in this case only two questions not disposed of in the writ of error upon the judgment in case of the indictment for embezzling county funds. (Mims v State, ante, p. 494.) These are that the sentence is cumulative, and that a sentence cannot be made to commence at a future day.

If both offences had been charged in one indictment, and there had been but one trial, and the plaintiff in error had been sentenced upon each count in the indictment, both sentences exceeding in the aggregate the punishment prescribed by law for such offence, the objection that the sentences were cumulative might be made. But we have never seen it laid down by any court or text-writer that, because a person upon a...