State Ex Rel. Harlow Stover v. Riffe, (No. 9770)
| Decision Date | 30 October 1945 |
| Docket Number | (No. 9770) |
| Citation | 128 W.Va. 70 |
| Parties | State ex rel. Harlow Stover v. Hon. W. A. Riffe, Judge, etc., et al. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Criminal Law
A third conviction for a felony which was committed prior to a second felony conviction does not justify the imposition of a life sentence by a trial court under Code, 61-11-19, as amended and reenacted by Chapter 31, Article 11, Sections 18 and 19, Acts, West Virginia Legislature, 1943, or by the Circuit Court of Marshall County on the information of the warden of the penitentiary under Code, 62-8-4, as amended and reenacted by Chapter 23, Article 8, Section 4, Acts, West Virginia Legislature, 1939.
Original proceeding by the State, at the relation of Harlow Stover, for a writ of mandamus commanding W. A. Riffe, Judge of the Circuit Court of Raleigh county, to sentence Elmo Williams to life imprisonment on a third felony conviction pursuant to information presented by relator's attorney, or commanding Clay S. Crouse, prosecuting attorney of such county, to furnish like information and respondent judge to pronounce such sentence thereon.
Writ denied.
Geo. W. Williams, for petitioner. John Q. Hutchinson, for respondents.
This is a proceeding in mandamus of the State at the relation of Harlow Stover, relator, against Honorable W. A. Riffe, Judge of the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, and Clay S. Crouse, Prosecuting Attorney of said County, respondents.
The prayer of the petition, in substance, is that the aforesaid Judge be commanded to accept and act upon information presented by relator's attorney regarding two former felony convictions against one Elmo Williams, having been convicted in said court of a third felony on the charge of grand larceny, and that he be commanded to proceed to sentence the accused to life imprisonment in conformity with Code, 61-11-19, as amended and reenacted by Chapter 31, Article 11, Section 18, Acts, West Virginia Legislature, 1943, or, if relator's attorney is not the proper party to present same, that said prosecuting attorney, acting under Code, 61-11-19, as amended and reenacted by Chapter 31, Article 11, Section 19, Acts, West Virginia Legislature, 1943, be commanded to furnish like information to said judge, and that the latter do then proceed to pronounce sentence as required by said Section 19.
It appears from the records filed with the petition that Elmo Williams was convicted and sentenced for a felony in 1942; that he was indicted on January 6, 1945, for the murder of his wife (daughter of relator Stover), and on June 11, 1945, was indicted for grand larceny committed on the 9th day of June of the same year.
Upon arraignment June 23, 1945, on the charge of murder, the attorney for the State advised the court that he would not prosecute for murder in the first degree, and the charge of first degree was dismissed. Thereupon Williams entered his plea of guilty of murder in the second degree, and was found guilty upon his plea. An information was then presented by the prosecuting attorney setting forth the former conviction of 1942. The defendant, after being duly cautioned, acknowledged in open court that he was the same person mentioned in said information; and the Court, having determined that defendant had been previously so convicted, entered judgment that defendant be confined in the penitentiary for the
On the same day (June 23, 1945,) and shortly after the foregoing proceeding, defendant was arraigned on the recent larceny charge, entered his plea of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dye v. Skeen
...in the penitentiary for life upon a person who is subsequently convicted of a felony. The recent case of State ex rel. Stover v. Riffe, 128 W.Va. 70, 35 S.E.2d 689, 690, was a proceeding in mandamus to require the judge of a trial court, under the present habitual criminal statute, to impos......
-
State v. Pratt
...ex rel. Medley v. Skeen, 138 W.Va. 409, 76 S.E.2d 146 (1953); Dye v. Skeen, 135 W.Va. 90, 62 S.E.2d 681 (1950); State ex rel. Stover v. Riffe, 128 W.Va. 70, 35 S.E.2d 689 (1945). The purpose of the habitual criminal statute is to deter a person from future criminal behavior. Dye v. Skeen, s......
-
State ex rel. Hill v. Boles, 12490
...if valid, may be considered only as a single prior felony conviction within the meaning of the recidivist statute. State ex rel. Stover v. Riffe, 128 W.Va. 70, 35 S.E.2d 689; Dye v. Skeen, 135 W.Va. 90, 62 S.E.2d 681, 24 A.L.R.2d 1234; State ex rel. Medley v. Skeen, 138 W.Va. 409, 76 S.E.2d......
-
Turner v. Holland, 16566
...161 W.Va. 437, 242 S.E.2d 571 (1978); 4 State ex rel. Yokum v. Adams, 145 W.Va. 450, 114 S.E.2d 892 (1960); State ex rel. Stover v. Riffe, 128 W.Va. 70, 35 S.E.2d 689 (1945). Furthermore, where two convictions are obtained against the defendant on the same day, they are treated as one convi......