Royster v. Smith

• Decision Date: 12 October 1953
• Citation: 77 S.E.2d 855,195 Va. 228
• Parties: M. L. ROYSTER, SUPERINTENDENT OF VIRGINIA STATE FARM v. JOHN LEWIS SMITH
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 855

77 S.E.2d 855

195 Va. 228

M. L. ROYSTER, SUPERINTENDENT OF VIRGINIA STATE FARM v. JOHN LEWIS SMITH.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

October 12, 1953.

J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Attorney General and Thomas M. Miller, Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff in error.

W. A. Hall, Jr., for the defendant in error.

JUDGE: HUDGINS

HUDGINS, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court.

John Lewis Smith was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for the commission of five separate and distinct felonies. On January 6, 1930, he was convicted in the Circuit Court of Madison county on two indictments; one charging the illegal manufacture of ardent spirits, the sentence being confinement in the penitentiary for one year, the other charging housebreaking with intent to steal, the sentence being similar confinement for five years. The order stated that the two sentences should run consecutively. Smith served these sentences and was discharged from custody.

On June 5, 1935, he was convicted in the Circuit Court of Page county for housebreaking with intent to steal and sentenced to the penitentiary. He served this sentence and was discharged from custody.

On February 23, 1949, he was convicted in the Circuit Court of Page county on two indictments for burglary to which he plead guilty. On each he was sentenced to two years in the penitentiary, the order stating that the sentences should run consecutively and not concurrently.

On July 27, 1949, he was tried as a third offender under the provisions of Code section 53-296, in the Circuit Court of the city of Richmond and sentenced to an additional ten years in the penitentiary.

On June 5, 1952, the same John Lewis Smith, hereinafter designated petitioner, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of Goochland county wherein he alleged that each of the above mentioned convictions was null and void and prayed to be discharged from custody. The lower court issued the writ, but on the hearing petitioner abandoned his attack upon all the judgments of conviction against him except the two convictions for burglary entered against him on February 23, 1949, in the Circuit Court of Page county, and his conviction as a third offender. The court held that the two convictions for burglary were null and void on the ground that the sentence imposed on each of the two indictments was two years in the penitentiary, whereas the minimum punishment prescribed for burglary by Code section 18-159 was and is five years. In the same order and over the objection of the Attorney General and petitioner, petitioner was transferred to the custody of the Circuit Court of Page county, 'for all such further action by the Circuit Court of Page county regarding the convictions against petitioner upon two charges of burglary in the proceedings of the Circuit Court of Page county on February 23, 1949, as that court may be advised.'

The Circuit Court of Goochland county retained the habeas corpus proceeding on its docket and on the 31st day of October, 1952, held that the judgment of conviction of petitioner as a third offender pronounced by the Circuit Court of the city of Richmond was null and void and discharged petitioner from custody under all of the sentences existing against him at the time of the filing of the petition. On the application of M. L. Royster, superintendent of Virginia State Farm, this writ of error was granted to review the two judgments of the lower court.

While the record shows that petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for the commission of five separate and distinct felonies, two of the judgments of conviction were pronounced against him in 1930 at the same term of the Circuit Court of Madison county and the two convictions for burglary were pronounced against him at the same term of the Circuit Court of Page county. Hence the validity of the conviction of petitioner as a third offender depends upon whether either of the judgments of conviction pronounced by the latter court in 1949 was final and not subject to collateral attack. Wesley v. Commonwealth, 190 Va. 268, 56 S.E. (2d) 362.

The orders evidencing the two judgments of conviction and sentence for burglary are similar. The following order was entered on January 29, 1949, on one of the indictments.

'Commonwealth v. John Lewis Smith

'FELONY (BURGLARY)

'This day came the attorney for the Commonwealth and the defendant, John Lewis Smith, appeared in the Court in the custody of the Sheriff of this county, and by counsel heretofore appointed to defend him, and being thereof arraigned plead guilty to the indictment, after having been advised by counsel.

'The Court having explained to him in open court the effects of his plea of guilt and being satisfied that he knows and understands the consequence of such plea; with the consent of the attorney for the Commonwealth and also of the defendant given in open court and entered of record, the court hears said case on said plea without the intervention of a jury, and the court having heard the evidence takes the case under advisement pending an investigation of the defendant by the Probation and Parole Officer of this district, who is hereby requested and directed by the court to make an investigation of the defendant, John Lewis Smith, and subsequently report his findings to this court.

'And the said defendant is remanded to jail.'

Thereafter, on February 23, in the same court and in the same case the following judgment of conviction was entered.

'FELONIES (BURGLARY)

'This day came the attorney for the Commonwealth and the defendant, John Lewis Smith, appeared in the court in the custody of the Sheriff of this county, and by counsel heretofore appointed by the court to defend him, pursuant to an order of this court entered on the 29th day of January 1949.

'Having received the written report of, and having heard the sworn testimony of Roy Lee Miller, Assistant Probation and Parole Officer of this District, in open court, which report is hereby ordered filed with the papers in this case, and the court being fully advised doth find the defendant, John Lewis Smith, guilty on each of two charges of burglary, as charged in the indictments, and fixes his punishment at confinement in the penitentiary of this Commonwealth for the term of two (2) years in each of two charges.

'It is therefore considered by the court that the Commonwealth recover the said John Lewis Smith the costs incident to this prosecution and that he be confined in the penitentiary of this Commonwealth, at hard labor, for the term of two (2) years on each of two charges, to run consecutively, subject to a credit of 36 days the time spent in jail.'

If the two sentences for burglary are nullities as contended by the petitioner, then his conviction as a third offender is illegal and void; if on the other hand the sentences are merely voidable, as contended by the Attorney General, then they are not subject to collateral attack and the judgments pronounced in the habeas corpus proceedings are erroneous and petitioner is not entitled to be discharged from custody.

This court has repeatedly held that a writ of habeas corpus does not lie where the judgment of conviction is merely voidable by reasons of error of law or fact, omissions, or other irregularities, no matter how numerous or flagrant they may be. The remedy in such cases is by appeal or writ of error. The underlying question in such proceedings is that of jurisdiction -- that is, whether the court had jurisdiction of the person and the subject matter and the power to render the particular judgment. If the court had jurisdiction of the person and of the subject matter of the prosecution, and if the punishment imposed is of the character prescribed by law, a writ of habeas corpus does not lie to release the prisoner from custody merely because of irregularities or defects in the sentence. Fitzgerald v. Smyth, 194 Va. 681, 74 S.E. (2d) 810; McDorman v. Smyth, 187 Va. 522, 47 S.E. (2d) 441; Thornhill v. Smyth, 185 Va. 986, 41 S.E. (2d) 11; Harmon v. Smyth, 183 Va. 414, 32 S.E. (2d) 665; Hanson v. Smyth, 183 Va. 384, 32 S.E. (2d) 142; Hobson v. Youell, 177 Va. 906, 15 S.E. (2d) 76; Gross v. Smyth, 182 Va. 724, 30 S.E. (2d) 570; Commonwealth v. Beavers, 150 Va. 33, 142 S.E. 402; 25 Am.Jur. 185-186, Habeas Corpus sec. 55.

In In re Belt, 159 U.S. 95, 100, 15 S.Ct. 987, 988, 40 L.ed. 88, 90, Chief Justice Fuller said 'The general rule is that the writ of habeas corpus will not issue unless the court, under whose warrant the petitioner is held, is without jurisdiction; and that it cannot be used to correct errors. Ordinarily the writ will not lie where there is a remedy by writ of error or appeal.

Mr. Justice Jackson in his concurring opinion in Brown v. Allen, (February 9, 1953) 344 U.S. 443, 73 Supreme Court Reporter 397, said: 'No state is obliged to furnish multiple remedies for same grievance. Most states, and with good reason, will not suffer a collateral attack such as habeas corpus to be used as a substitute for or duplication of the appeal. A state properly may deny habeas corpus to raise either state or federal issues that were or could have been considered on appeal.'

The general rule is that a sentence to a shorter term or lesser punishment than that prescribed by law for the offense for which an accused was convicted ordinarily cannot be successfully assailed in habeas corpus proceedings. 25 Am.Jur. 189, Habeas Corpus sec. 62; 39 C.J.S. 501, Habeas Corpus sec. 26(f).

In Lee Lim v. Davis, 75 Utah 245, 284 P. 323, 76 A.L.R. 460 at 463, it is said that defendant 'seeks to apply the principle applicable in cases where the court in pronouncing sentence does not follow the law, but imposes a sentence of imprisonment for a term less than that which it is by law directed to impose. Such a sentence, by the weight of authority though erroneous, is not void, and the prisoner will...