State v. Cannon
| Decision Date | 07 January 1884 |
| Citation | 11 Or. 312,2 P. 191 |
| Parties | STATE v. CANNON. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from Marion county.
N.R Knight, for appellant.
W.H Holmes, Dist. Atty., for respondent.
The only question to be determined in this case is, could the court legally impose the judgment and sentence under which the defendant is now imprisoned? The record discloses that the defendant was indicted for an assault with a dangerous weapon, to which he had entered a plea of not guilty, that subsequently, and by consent of the court, he was permitted to withdraw that plea and enter the plea of guilty of an assault, upon which the court rendered judgment against the defendant that he pay a fine of $50, and the costs and expenses of the action, and that he be committed to the custody of the sheriff of said county until said fine be paid; that in pursuance of said judgment the defendant was taken into custody by the sheriff and committed to the county jail; that thereafter, but on the same day, upon an order of said court, the defendant was brought from said jail into said court, when the court proceeded again to pass sentence and judgment against him; "that he pay a fine of two hundred dollars, and the costs and expenses of this action and that he stand committed until said fine be paid," against the objection of said defendant that he had already been committed to jail under the judgment of said court, and that the court could not render another judgment against him upon said plea of guilty under the proceedings then before it.
We are only called upon to determine this case upon the record certified to us. That record shows that the defendant had been duly committed to the jail by the sheriff under the first judgment of conviction, and was then undergoing punishment on account of it, when he was again brought before the court, and another judgment rendered against him by virtue of the same proceedings, under which he is now held. The fact that the last judgment was such as did not exceed the limit fixed for the crime, is not material here. The question here is, could the court revise its judgment and increase the sentence imposed, although during the same term after its original judgment had gone into effect? It is clear upon authority that this cannot be done when a sentence has been passed upon a defendant, and the judgment has gone into effect by commitment of the defendant under it, the court has done...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowley v. Welch
...v. Weymouth, Mass. 1861, 2 Allen 144, 79 Am.Dec. 776; Commonwealth v. Foster, 1877, 122 Mass. 317, 23 Am.Rep. 326; State v. Cannon, 1884, 11 Or. 312, 2 P. 191; cf. United States v. Benz, 1931, 282 U.S. 304, 51 S.Ct. 113, 75 L.Ed. 354. Similarly after the prisoner has been convicted and has ......
-
State v. Sierra
...Court agreed, relying on its prior decisions in State ex rel O'Leary v. Jacobs, 295 Or. 632, 669 P.2d 1128 (1983), and State v. Cannon, 11 Or. 312, 2 P. 191 (1884). Those cases reflect the longstanding common-law rule in Oregon that a sentencing court lacks the inherent authority to modify ......
-
State v. Lebeck
...execution of a sentence occurs when the sentence is "put into effect." O'Leary, 295 Or. at 636, 669 P.2d 1128 (citing State v. Cannon, 11 Or. 312, 314, 2 P. 191 (1884)); see also Perry, 140 Or.App. at 23, 914 P.2d 29. A sentence of probation becomes effective immediately on imposition of th......
-
Turner v. State
...the original sentence has gone into operation, or any action is had under it. In re Sullivan, 3 Cal. App. 193, 84 P. 781; State v. Cannon, 11 Or. 312, 2 P. 191; People v. Kelley et al., 79 Mich. 320, 44 N. W. 615; Emerson et al. v. Boyles, 170 Ark. 621, 280 S. W. 1005, 44 A. L. R. (Annotate......