State v. Delmonto
| Decision Date | 25 November 1929 |
| Citation | 147 A. 825,110 Conn. 298 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. DELMONTO. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Arthur F. Ells, Judge.
Thomas Delmonto had been convicted for unlawfully carrying revolver in motor vehicle. A second information was charged alleging that accused had theretofore twice been convicted, sentenced and imprisoned in a state prison or penitentiary. Motion to quash second information was sustained and the information dismissed, and the State appeals. No error.
Lorin W. Willis, Asst. State's Atty., and William H. Comley State's Atty., both of Bridgeport, for the State.
Franklin Coeller, of New Haven, for appellee.
Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS, JJ.
The accused was tried upon an information charging him with unlawfully carrying a revolver in a motor vehicle and found guilty. Thereafter, and for the first time, the state offered an information charging that the accused had twice before been convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned in a state prison or penitentiary, once in the federal penitentiary at Atlanta and once in the state prison in this state. The state's attorney had knowledge of these prior convictions when the accused was put to plea upon the original information, but did not inform the accused or his counsel or the court of his intention to file such information until after the accused had been found guilty and the jury discharged. The accused filed a motion to quash the second information, which was granted and the information dismissed, and the state, with the permission of the court, appealed.
Section 6660 of the General Statutes 1918 provides for the imposition of indeterminate sentences in the cases of persons sentenced to the state prison, and further provides that, " when any person so sentenced shall have twice before been convicted, sentenced and imprisoned in a state prison or penitentiary, the court shall sentence said person to a maximum of thirty years." In sustaining the motion to quash, the court ruled: First, that allegations of prior convictions of the accused relating to the penalty alone must be incorporated in the original information; and, second, that the words " state prison or penitentiary" in the statute were not intended to include the federal penitentiary at Atlanta.
The function of an information under our practice, as well as of the indictment more commonly used in other jurisdictions, is to charge the person named in it with the commission of a crime the nature of which is therein set forth. An information which did not allege facts constituting a criminal offense against the State would ordinarily be subject to a motion to quash or demurrer. That portion of our Indeterminate Sentence Act which relates to third offenders does not create a new crime. It relates solely to the penalty, taking away the discretion of the court and requiring a maximum penalty of 30 years in cases when the accused has two prior convictions. State v. Reilly, 94 Conn. 698, 702, 110 A. 550. The allegations of the second information do not charge the commission of a crime. They set up collateral matters affecting the penalty to be imposed for the offense charged in the original information, matters which, apart from the statute, would necessarily be considered by the court in fixing, within the limits prescribed by statute, the penalty to be imposed.
Logically the fact that the accused has been previously convicted of crime is not the proper subject-matter of an information alleging the commission of a crime. Since, however, the maximum sentence in the case of an accused who has been twice convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned is absolutely fixed by the statute and exceeds the maximum for a first offense, fairness...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Enlow
...of course, uses the term 'penitentiary' in accordance with its ordinary signification, which is 'state's prison." See also State v. Delmonto, 110 Conn. 298, 147 A. 825; Queenan v. Territory, 11 Okl. 261, 71 P. 218, 61 L.R.A. Enlow was convicted of a violation of the federal Internal Revenue......
-
State v. Waterhouse
...that both in England and Connecticut prior offenses must be alleged in the indictment. It was so expressly held in State v. Delmonto, 110 Conn. 298, 147 A. 825. It should be remembered that we are dealing now only with the question whether the indictment is vulnerable to There is, of course......
-
State v. Miller
...The function of an information is to charge the accused named with the commission of the crime therein set forth. State v. Delmonto, 110 Conn. 298, 299, 147 A. 825. The averments must be stated with sufficient clearness to apprise the accused of the offense with which he is charged. State v......
-
Daley v. Warden of State Prison, 110113
...to the penalty only and increases the maximum that may be imposed for the offense charged in the original information. State v. Delmonto, 110 Conn. 298, 300, 147 A. 825; State v. Reilly, 94 Conn. 698, 702, 110 A. 550; State v. Ferrone, 96 Conn. 160, 172, 113 A. 452; Armstrong v. Potter, 20 ......