State v. Cotton

• Decision Date: 14 April 1965
• Citation: 400 P.2d 1022,240 Or. 252
• Parties: STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Cletis COTTON, Appellant.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Page 1022

400 P.2d 1022

240 Or. 252

STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Cletis COTTON, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Oregon, Department 1.

Argued and Submitted Jan. 8, 1965.

Decided April 14, 1965.

Donald B. Bowerman, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.

Vincent G. Ierulli, Deputy Dist. Atty., Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was George Van Hoomissen, Dist. Atty., Portland.

Before McALLISTER, C. J., and PERRY, O'CONNELL, DENECKE and LUSK, JJ.

McALLISTER, Chief Justice.

The defendant, Cletis Cotton, plead guilty in Multnomah county to an indictment charging him with the crime of burglary not in a dwelling, and on February 7, 1964 was sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail for a period of twelve months. The state moved to vacate the sentence on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to sentence defendant to the county jail when the exclusive penalty provided by statute was imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term not exceeding ten years. The court on February 24, 1964 vacated the original sentence and sentenced the defendant to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term not exceeding three years. Defendant appeals.

A defendant who has plead guilty may appeal, but the only question which the appellate court may consider is whether 'an excessive fine or excessive, cruel or unusual punishment not proportionate to the offense has been imposed.' ORS 138.050. State v. Froembling, 237 Or. 616, 622, 391 P.2d 390 (1964); State v. Gidley, 231 Or. 89, 371 P.2d 992 (1962). The defendant concedes that ordinarily imprisonment in the penitentiary for three years is not excessive, cruel or unusual punishment for the crime of which he was convicted. He contends, however, that the punishment in this case was cruel and unusual because the penitentiary sentence was imposed after he had been led to believe that he would be treated with leniency and had actually started to serve the sentence of one year in the county jail. Although the defendant's argument is ingenious, it is not convincing.

The court in imposing punishment for a criminal offense is limited strictly to the provisions of the applicable statute, and any deviation from the statute in the mode, extent or place of punishment renders the judgment void. State v. Commedore, Or., 396 P.2d 216 (1964); Rightnour v. Gladden, 219 Or. 342, 350, 354, 347 P.2d 103 (1959); State v. Boles, W.Va., 137 S.E.2d 418 (1964); Mathes v. United States, 254 F.2d 938, 939 (9th Cir. 1958); Bozza v. United States, 330 U.S. 160, 67 S.Ct. 645, 91 L.Ed. 818 (1947); In re Bonner, Petitioner, 151 U.S. 242, 14 S.Ct. 323, 38 L.Ed. 149 (1894). The trial court had no jurisdiction to impose a county jail sentence as punishment for a crime for which the statute provides punishment only by imprisonment in the penitentiary. The original sentence was void and it was the duty of the trial court when the...