Murphy v. Lawhon, 38390
| Decision Date | 03 March 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 38390,38390 |
| Citation | 213 Miss. 513,57 So.2d 154 |
| Parties | MURPHY v. LAWHON, Sheriff. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Ramon L. Burgess, Tupelo, for appellant.
J. P. Coleman, Atty. Gen. by Geo. H. Ethridge, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal by Wilson Murphy, the petitioner in a habeas corpus proceeding from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Lee County remanding the petitioner to the custody of the sheriff for confinement in the county jail pursuant to a judgment of the court revoking the suspension of sentence in a case wherein the defendant was convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor.
The appellant, at the November 1948 Term of the Circuit Court, pleaded guilty to charges of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor and of unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor, and was sentenced in each case to pay a fine of $500 and serve three months in the county jail. Two hundred dollars of the fine and the three months jail sentence in each case was suspended during good behavior. On May 12, 1951, the district attorney filed a petition requesting that the suspension be revoked on the ground that the appellant on April 25, 1951, had been guilty of the unlawful operation of a motor vehicle on the public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and that such conduct constituted a breach of the conditions of the suspension of sentence. A hearing was conducted by the court upon the petition filed by the district attorney, and the court found that the appellant had violated the conditions of the suspension in each of the above mentioned cases by driving a motor vehicle on the public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor; and the court entered an order revoking the suspension of sentence in the case wherein the appellant had been convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor and remanding the appellant to the custody of the sheriff for the purpose of requiring the appellant to pay the balance of the fine and to serve the three months jail sentence imposed upon him in that case. The appellant thereupon filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain a release from custody under the above mentioned order of revocation.
The appellant's attorney in his brief argues two points on this appeal: (1) That the finding of the trial judge that the petitioner had broken the conditions of the suspension was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence; and (2) that the trial judge erred in permitting the district attorney on cross-examination of the appellant to interrogate the appellant as to other acts of misconduct not set out in the petition for revocation.
A transcript of the testimony taken in the hearing upon the petition filed by the district attorney for the revocation of the suspension of sentence was made a part of the record at the hearing upon the petition for the writ of habeas corpus. There was a direct conflict in the testimony of the witnesses for the State and the testimony of the witnesses for the defendant. The testimony of the State's witnesses that the appellant was driving the automobile in which he was riding at the time the automobile left the highway, and that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor was contradicted by the testimony of the defendant and the defendant's witnesses. But there was ample evidence to support the finding of the trial judge that the appellant was driving the automobile and that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor; and on a hearing of this kind this Court will not reverse the decision of the lower court on an issue of fact, when that decision is supported by substantial evidence.
The question as to the amount of proof required to justify the trial judge in revoking a suspended sentence was discussed in the opinion of this Court rendered by Judge Anderson in the case of McLemore v. State, 170 Miss. 641, 155 So. 415. In that case the Court made it clear that a hearing upon a petition for revocation of a suspension of sentence is not in the nature of a criminal trial, and that it is not incumbent upon the State in a proceeding of this kind to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has violated the conditions of the suspension order. It is only necessary that the evidence be sufficient to convince the court that the conditions of the suspension have been violated.
In the case of Cooper v. State, 175 Miss. 718, 168 So. 53, 54, the Court again had under consideration an appeal attempted to be taken from an order of the circuit judge revoking the suspension of a sentence; and in that case the Court said: 'It was a matter of grace and solely within the discretion of the trial judge to suspend part of the fine and jail sentence, and when that has been done, all that the statute requires in respect to the order of revocation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Walter
...794 (1953); Ridley v. Commonwealth, 287 S.W.2d 156 (Ky.1956); Edwardsen v. State, 220 Md. 82, 151 A.2d 132 (1959); Murphy v. Lawhon, 213 Miss. 513, 57 So.2d 154 (1952); State v. Zachowski, 53 N.J.S.uper. 431, 147 A.2d 584 (1959); People v. Oskroba, 305 N.Y. 113, 111 N.E.2d 235 (1953); State......
-
State v. Robinson
...be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Manning v. U. S., 5 Cir., 161 F.2d 827; Slayton v. Com., 185 Va. 357, 38 S.E.2d 479; Murphy v. Lawhon, 213 Miss. 513, 57 So.2d 154; Blaylock v. State, 88 Ga.App. 880, 78 S.E.2d 537; Bryant v. State, 89 Ga. App. 891, 81 S.E.2d 556; People v. Kuduk, 320 Il......
-
Ray v. State
...probation is not a criminal case, and it is only necessary that the evidence be sufficient to convince the court. Murphy v. Lawhon, Sheriff,213 Miss. 513, 57 So.2d 154 (1952); Shook v. State, 212 Miss. 472, 54 So.2d 728 The guilt or innocence on habeas corpus is not material. State v. Morga......
-
Smith v. State, 97-CT-00753-SCT.
...committed the act. It should be remembered that a conviction is not necessary for the court to revoke probation. Murphy v. Lawhon, 213 Miss. 513, 517, 57 So.2d 154 (1952) (probation violation need not be proven beyond reasonable doubt). The trial judge may revoke probation "upon a showing t......