State v. Chandler

• Decision Date: 21 March 1924
• Docket Number: No. 23853.,23853.
• Citation: 158 Minn. 447,197 N.W. 847
• Parties: STATE v. CHANDLER.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

158 Minn. 447

197 N.W. 847

STATE

v.CHANDLER.

No. 23853.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 21, 1924.

Appeal from District Court, Steele County; Fred W. Senn, Judge.

Habeas corpus by Roy Chandler for release from custody. From an order quashing the writ and remanding relator, he appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

A person is not given immunity from prosecution for a criminal offense committed in this state merely because he has been brought into the state in violation of his legal rights.

The courts of this state will not stay their judgment and sentence to imprisonment by stopping to inquire whether the defendant was properly or improperly brought into the jurisdiction of the court. Under section 8498, Gen. St. 1913, the district court is authorized to revoke, without notice, its order suspending a sentence in a criminal case. W. T. Hanzal, of Owatonna, for appellant.

C. L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., Jas. E. Markham, Deputy Atty. Gen., and John Swendiman, Jr., of Dodge Center, for the State.

WILSON, C. J.

The relator procured a writ of habeas corpus to issue in the district court, and upon a hearing that court quashed the writ and remanded the relator to the custody of the respondent. The relator has appealed, and the matter is here for trial de novo. Reference has been had and the record filed in this court.

Rice Bros., commission merchants in Chicago, sent relator, then living in Dodge county, Minn., $2,000 with which to buy cattle for them and ship to them at Chicago. He bought cattle, but shipped them to South St. Paul, and did not turn the proceeds over to Rice Bros. At the October, 1920, term of court in Dodge county relator was indicted, tried, and convicted of grand larceny in the first degree (punishable by imprisonment for not less than 1 nor more than 10 years. Section 8874, G. S. 1913. He was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for a period of not less than 1 nor more than 5 years. Execution of this sentence was stayed for 40 days. Further stays were granted until April 26, 1921.

Section 8496, G. S. 1913, authorized the suspension of sentence in cases where the maximum penalty did not exceed 5 years in state prison. Chapter 298, G. L. 1921, approved April 15, 1921, changed this to include all cases where the maximum penalty did not exceed 10 years.

On April 26, 1921, the trial court ordered that its sentence theretofore imposed be suspended until the next term of the court (October, 1921) on condition that the relator, by way of restitution, pay $750 in cash to apply on the loss sustained by Rice Bros., and that he pay them $30 per month until they were paid in full. Relator did not appear at the October, 1921, term, nor at any subsequent term thereof. He made but four of the monthly payments. He disappeared, and inquiry by the county attorney and by his own counsel did not reveal his whereabouts.

[1] On August 7, 1923, upon the application of the county attorney, the court made an order revoking the order suspending sentence, and ordered that a bench warrant issue and commitment be made in accordance with the original sentence. On September 18, 1923, relator was located at Sioux City, Iowa, where he was arrested at the request of Minnesota authorities, and the sheriff of Dodge county went to Sioux City, Iowa, armed merely with the bench warrant. The relator upon his detention at Sioux City consulted a local lawyer, and concluded to return with the Minnesota sheriff without the formality of extradition, and upon reaching the Steele county jail (where he was kept for Dodge county) in preparation to be taken to the prison at Stillwater, he procured the writ involved in this proceeding.

Upon our view of the record the relator voluntarily accompanied the sheriff to Minnesota; but, upon the version of the relator that he was wrongfully taken from the state of Iowa upon a bench warrant issued by the court in Minnesota, he would not have immunity from prosecution for a crime committed in this state; and the courts of this state will not stay their judgment and...