Morris v. Aderhold

Decision Date13 November 1946
Docket Number15645.
Citation40 S.E.2d 747,201 Ga. 533
PartiesMORRIS v. ADERHOLD, Warden.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where a petition for the writ of habeas corpus affirmatively shows on its face that the restraint is lega, the court has the power on general demurrer to dismiss the writ and remand the applicant. In such a case the general demurrer, under our practice, serves the purpose of a motion to quash the writ for insufficiency of the allegations in the petition.

2. There is nothing contained in the Indeterminate Sentence Act of 1939 which could be construed as giving the jury the right, where by consent two or more cases are tried together to say whether the sentences shall run concurrently or consecutively. In those cases where the jury assess the punishment, it is mandatory that it fix a minimum and a maximum period within the limits fixed by the statute, this being the extent of the jury's duty.

3. Where a party is accused of several separate and distinct violations, and by consent the cases are tried together by one jury which renders separate verdicts of guilty, it is proper to impose a sentence in each case where the jury returns a verdict of guilty; the only effect of the agreement being that the cases may be jointly tried, which cannot be done except by consent.

(a) Habeas corpus is never a substitute for a writ of error, or other remedial procedure, to correct errors in the trial of a criminal case.

On August 9, 1946, Nacomas Morris filed a petition against A. C Aderhold, warden of Georgia State Prison, for the writ of habeas corpus. He alleged: That a grand jury in the Superior Court of Crisp County, at the July term, 1942, had returned three true bills against him, each charging a felony. Indictment No. 6397 was in two counts. The first charged him with having forged the name of W. E. Gordon to a check for $10, drawn on Cordele Banking Company on July 13, 1942. The second count charged that he falsely and fraudulently passed to W. C. Gleaton the forged check of $10 on the date it was forged. Indictment No. 6399 charged that he forged to name of W. E. Gordon to a check for the sum of $8, on July 13, 1942, which was drawn on Cordele Banking Company. Indictment No. 6400 charged him with having forged the name of W. E. Gordon on a check for $15, on July 17 1942, which was drawn on the First State Bank in Cordele. He filed pleas of not guilty, a separate plea being entered on each indictment. By consent the three cases were tried together before one jury, which returned a verdict of guilty on each of the three indictments, and by each separate verdict fixed his punishment at from three to four years in the penitentiary. The court on October 3, 1942, imposed three separate sentences on him, fixing his punishment in each as found by the jury, but provided therein that they should be served consecutively, that is, one to follow the other. He was now being illegally detained under the second sentence thus imposed, which provided that it should begin at the expiration of the first sentence. The court was without authority to provide in the sentences that they should be served consecutively, because: (1) The sentences are known in law as indeterminate sentences, whereby there is a fixed minimum sentence and an indefinite or indeterminate period within a limit of a maximum sentence, to be dealt with by rules of (then the Prison Commission and now) the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, which is a different authority from the court imposing the sentences; (2) the jury by its verdicts made no provision as to whether the sentences should be served concurrently or consecutively, and it was therefore the duty of the court to impose sentences only in accord with the verdicts and sentences, to be concurrently served, which, were the only legal ones that could have been imposed; and (3) the three offenses charged indicate a single criminal enterprise of about the same time, and were treated as such by the court in permitting them to be consolidated for trial by one jury, and while the jury returned three like verdicts, one on each indictment, they should be construed as one verdict fixing the punishment at from three to four years in the penitentiary. The petitioner had now served more than four years, and was legally entitled to be released.

The respondent demurred generally to the petition as failing to state a cause of action for the relief sought, and as showing on its face that the detention was legal.

The court sustained the demurrer and remanded the accused to the custody of the warden. To this judgment exception was taken.

Alfred Herrington, of Swainsboro, for plaintiff in error.

Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Margaret...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Salem v. State, 26691
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • October 8, 1971
    ...at the same time. 'A defendant may be tried for separate and distinct offenses at the same time with his consent. Morris v. Aderhold, Warden, 201 Ga. 533, 534, 40 S.E.2d 747; Sides v. State, 213 Ga. 482, 485, 99 S.E.2d 884. When a defendant joins issue on separate indictments in a consolida......
  • Reid v. Perkerson, 17091
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • June 12, 1950
    ...149 Ga. 28, 98 S.E. 607; Coleman v. Grimes, 154 Ga. 852, 115 S.E. 641; Kinman v. Clark, 185 Ga. 328, 195 S.E. 166; Morris v. Aderhold, 201 Ga. 533, 40 S.E.2d 747. 2. The unconstitutionality of a statute or city ordinance under which a detention is sought to be sustained, generally is ground......
  • Gandy v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • April 4, 1974
    ...remained effective, and it required that multiple felony sentences be served consecutively. In 1946 this court in Morris v. Aderhold, 201 Ga. 533, 535, 40 S.E.2d 747, 749, said: 'Having convicted him, the jury did all that it was authorized to do under § 27-2526 of the Code, namely, fix a m......
  • Loftin v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • January 23, 1973
    ...191 S.E,2d 545 and as recognized by this court in mumerous cases, e.g., McGill v. State, 226 Ga. 802, 177 S.E.2d 675; Morris v. Aderhold, 201 Ga. 533, 536, 40 S.E.2d 747; Sides v. State, 213 Ga. 482, 99 S.E.2d 884. However, this rule, insofar as it may be applicable to situations outside th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT