Rupert v. State
| Decision Date | 19 April 1913 |
| Citation | 131 P. 713,9 Okla.Crim. 226,1913 OK CR 101 |
| Parties | RUPERT v. STATE (TWO CASES). |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
The constitutional provision (section 21, Bill of Rights) "nor shall any person be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty for the same offense," and the common-law principal therein declared are broad enough to mean that no one can be twice lawfully punished for the same offense. Hence, when a court has rendered judgment and imposed sentence upon a plea of guilty for the offense charged, and such judgment and sentence has been executed and satisfied that ends the prosecution, and the power of the court as to that offense is at an end; and the court is without jurisdiction to render a second judgment and sentence upon the same charge.
Jeopardy in its constitutional and common-law sense, has a strict application to criminal prosecutions only; and the word "jeopardy," as used in the Constitution, signifies the danger of conviction and punishment which the defendant in a criminal prosecution incurs when put upon trial before a court of competent jurisdiction under an indictment or information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction.
The defendant, upon his plea of guilty, was sentenced to pay a fine of $100--a punishment that is authorized by the statute for the offense charged. On the same day he paid the fine and satisfied the judgment. A month later he was brought into court, the original sentence was set aside, and he was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and to be confined in the county jail for 15 days. Held, that the second judgment and sentence is, under such circumstances, null and void.
Appeal from Blaine County Court; George W. Ferguson, Judge.
Paris Rupert was convicted in two cases of the violation of the game laws, and he appeals. Reversed.
Wm. O. Woolman, of Watonga, for plaintiff in error.
Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The single question presented for our decision is, Could the county court legally impose the judgments and sentences appealed from? Otherwise stated, has a court the power to revise and increase a judgment and sentence at the same term after it has been executed and satisfied?
The general power of a court to reconsider its judgment and sentence and reverse, vacate, or modify it at any time during the term in which it was rendered, or to increase or diminish the sentence which it has imposed, where the original sentence has not been executed or put into operation, is undeniable. Bish. New Crim. Proc. § 1288, and cases cited. This power is inherent in all courts of record. However, it would seem there must, in the nature of the power thus exercised by the court, be in criminal cases some limit to it. It is clear that a court cannot pass two sentences for the same offense, to be enforced at the same time. And the validity of a second judgment and sentence must be because the first judgment and sentence is legally annulled or revoked and made void.
That no person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense is a universally accepted principle of the common law, and this principle has been embodied in the federal Constitution and in all state Constitutions, and it is incorporated in the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma by express provision, as follows: "Nor shall any person be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty for the same offense." Section 21, Bill of Rights.
Jeopardy, in its constitutional or common-law sense, has a strict application to criminal prosecutions only. The word "jeopardy," as used in the Constitution, signifies the danger of conviction and punishment which the defendant in a criminal prosecution incurs when put upon trial before a court of competent jurisdiction under a valid indictment, information, or complaint, and in this use it is applied only to strictly criminal prosecutions. Stout v. State, 34 Okl. ___, 130 P. 553. "A person is not in legal jeopardy until put upon trial before a court of competent jurisdiction under an information or indictment sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction." Cooley, Const. Lim. (7th Ed.) 467, and cases cited.
We think this provision of the Bill of Rights, and the principle therein declared, is broad enough to mean that no person can be twice lawfully punished for the same offense. The one follows from the other, and this constitutional provision is designed and intended to protect the accused from a double punishment as much as to protect him from two trials. For this reason we think that where a judgment and sentence has been executed and satisfied that ends the prosecution, exhausts the power of the court, and terminates its jurisdiction, and the court is without power or jurisdiction to render another judgment and sentence in the case.
The leading case upon this question is Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 21 L.Ed. 872. In that case the defendant was convicted of appropriating mail bags, of the value of less than $25, the punishment for which offense, as provided by statute, was imprisonment for not more than one year or a fine of not less than $10 or more than $200. The sentence was one year's imprisonment and $200 fine. The defendant was committed in pursuance of the sentence and paid the fine the day after his commitment. On the second day after his commitment he was brought by habeas corpus before the same judge who sentenced him, who vacated the former judgment and sentenced the defendant anew to one year's imprisonment. The case came before the Supreme Court of the United States on habeas corpus, and the defendant was discharged, on the ground that, where a statute imposes as a punishment a fine or imprisonment, and the court has both fined and imprisoned the defendant, who thereupon pays the fine, the court has no power, even during the same term, to modify the judgment by imposing imprisonment instead of the former sentence. One of the alternative requirements of the statute having been satisfied, the power of the court as to the offense was at an end. Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the court, said:
"The judgment of the court to this effect being rendered and carried into execution before the expiration of the term, can the judge vacate that sentence and substitute fine or imprisonment and cause the latter sentence also to...
To continue reading
Request your trial