Spears v. State
| Decision Date | 08 November 1937 |
| Docket Number | Crim. 4067 |
| Citation | 109 S.W.2d 926,194 Ark. 836 |
| Parties | SPEARS v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Cleveland Circuit Court; DuVall L. Purkins, Judge affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
George H. Holmes and E. W. Brockman, for appellant.
Jack Holt, Attorney General, and John P. Streepey, Assistant, for appellee.
Appellant was indicted on a charge of grand larceny in July 1933, and thereafter, on July 17, 1934, entered his plea of guilty to said indictment, at which time the court made this order: "Whereupon, the court doth order that the judgment rendered herein be and the same is hereby suspended during good behavior and payment of the court costs in this suit, the court retaining jurisdiction for all purposes until the next term of this court." Appellant was then discharged and no further action was taken against him until July 19, 1937, at which time the prosecuting attorney filed a petition praying that the suspended sentence be set aside and the defendant be sentenced to the penitentiary. There was a hearing on this motion and, on July 20, 1937, the court granted the prayer of the motion, set aside the suspended sentence, and sentenced appellant to the penitentiary. This appeal is from that judgment.
Appellant assigns three reasons or grounds for a reversal of this judgment. The first is that the court, having imposed the limitation in the order of July, 1934, in which he suspended the sentence, that is, "the court retaining jurisdiction for all purposes until the next term of court," is now without jurisdiction to change, alter or modify said order because the next term of court has elapsed. The second ground is that the testimony offered on behalf of the state failed to show that appellant violated the conditions of said order, even on the question of good behavior. The third ground is that the decision of the court was based upon hearsay and neighborhood rumor, and to deprive one of his liberty on neighborhood rumor would set a dangerous precedent.
Appellant's first contention is based upon language used in Hartley v. State, 184 Ark. 237, 42 S.W.2d 7, where it was said: It is contended here that there was a limitation fixed in the order suspending the sentence, that is, until the next term of court, and that after the next term, the court lost jurisdiction to change the order.
Section 4053 of Pope's Digest confers authority on circuit courts in criminal cases, "if he shall deem it best for the defendant and not harmful to society, to postpone the pronouncement of final sentence and judgment upon such conditions as he shall deem proper and reasonable as to probation of the person convicted, the restitution of the property involved, and the payment of the costs of the case." Section 4054 reads as follows: "Such judge shall have power, at any time the court may be in session, to revoke the suspension and postponement mentioned in § 4053, and to pronounce sentence and enter final judgment in such cause whenever that course shall be deemed for the best interests of society and such convicted person." Section 4055 provides for the collection of costs whether the sentence be suspended or not. It will be noticed that by § 4054 the court has the power at any time that it is in session to revoke the suspension of sentence, and to pronounce sentence and enter final judgment, "whenever that course shall be deemed for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Robinson
...v. Com., supra; Murphy v. Lawhon, supra; Pritchett v. U. S., 4 Cir., 67 F.2d 244; Neely v. U. S., 5 Cir., 151 F.2d 533; Spears v. State, 194 Ark. 836, 109 S.W.2d 926. In determining whether the evidence warrants the revocation of a suspended sentence, the credibility of the witnesses and th......
-
Slayton v. Commonwealth
...at page 245; Neely v. United States, supra, 151 F.2d at page 533; People v. Lippner, 219 Cal. 395, 26 P. 2d 457, 458; Spears v. State, 194 Ark. 836, 109 S.W.2d 926, 927. As was said in Burns v. United States, supra, 287 U.S. at pages 222, 223, 53 S.Ct. at page 156, 77 L.Ed. 266, in affirmin......
-
Ponder v. Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Co.
... ... [109 S.W.2d 948] ... ... "All moneys paid or payable to any resident of this ... state as the insured or beneficiary designated under any ... insurance policy or policies providing for the payment of ... life, sick, accident and/or ... ...
-
Ellerson v. State
...of discretion to exercise the discretion to revoke a suspension of a sentence arbitrarily without any foundation in fact. Spears v. State, 194 Ark. 836, 109 S.W.2d 926. Where the decision turns, as it does here, upon the credibility of the witness, this court cannot say that there was an ab......