Stafford v. State, 38239
| Decision Date | 10 December 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 38239,38239 |
| Citation | 55 So.2d 477 |
| Parties | STAFFORD v. STATE. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Hormer W. Pittman, Hattiesburg, for appellant.
J. P. Coleman, Atty. Gen., and Geo. H. Ethridge, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
ETHRIDGE, Commissioner.
At the April, 1951, term of the Circuit Court of Forrest County, the following indictment, omitting the formal parts, was returned against appellant, Webber Wilson Stafford:
'That John H. Reed, Jr. and Webber Wilson Stafford, on the 16th day of April, 1951, in Forrest County aforesaid: did wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away four automobile tires--three being size 600 X 16 each and one being 670 X 16; two of Goodyear make, one of Federal make and one of Kelly make, and of the value of $5.00 each and a total value of $20.00; also four 600 X 16 steel wheels from a 1939 Oldsmobile automobile each of the value of $5.00 each, and the total value of $20.00, and all of the total value of $40.00, good and lawful money of the United States of America, and the personal property of Magnolia Motor Sales, a corporation, against the peace and dignity of the State of Mississippi.'
On arraignment appellant appeared before the circuit court with his counsel and pleaded not guilty. Subsequently he appeared before the court with his counsel and, with the court's consent, withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty. Appellant was asked if he had anything to say why the sentence should not be pronounced against him, he said nothing, and the court sentenced him to three years in the penitentiary. Later appellant moved the court to set aside the judgment and sentence, to permit him to withdraw his guilty plea and to enter one of not guilty, and to grant a new trial, on the grounds that the indictment was vague and insufficient, that it failed to properly describe the property alleged to have been taken, and that it charged a series of petty larcenies rather than the crime of grand larceny. The motion did not allege that the appellant had a meritorious defense. He did not offer any evidence to that effect. The motion was overruled, and from that action appellant assigns errors based wholly upon the insufficiency of the indictment.
Appellant argues that the quoted indictment charges two petty larcenies rather than a grand larceny. The indictment must be read as an entirety and it is apparent from the entire instrument that the charge was for the stealing of both the tires and the steel wheels, 'all of the total value of $40.00', as one continuing transaction. In prior decisions the Court has approved the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perciful v. Holley, 38716
...the present circumstances we certainly cannot say that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying that relief. Stafford v. State, Miss., 1951, 55 So.2d 477. In Miles v. Monaghan, Sheriff, 1951, 211 Miss. 150, 154, 51 So.2d 212, 214, it was said that 'Trial judges are vested with a w......
-
Rucker v. State
...566, 118 So. 628. There was certainly no abuse of discretion in this case, and the contention is wholly without merit.' Cf. Stafford v. State, Miss., 55 So.2d 477. We feel that the judge was fully justified in overruling the motion to set aside the plea of guilty. It was wholly within his d......
-
Hicks v. State Of Miss., 2009-CP-01100-COA.
...be read and construed as a whole, rather than giving limited consideration to the individual counts contained therein. See Stafford v. State, 55 So.2d 477 (Miss.1951). “So long as a fair reading of the indictment, taken as a whole, clearly describes the nature and cause of the charge agains......