State v. Osborne.
| Decision Date | 05 August 1947 |
| Citation | 54 A.2d 526 |
| Parties | STATE v. OSBORNE. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Cumberland County.
Walter W. Osborne was convicted in Municipal Court of Brunswick on charge of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor, following his entry of a plea of guilty, and he thereafter appealed to the Superior Court for Cumberland County. Respondent there filed a motion to be allowed to withdraw the plea of guilty which he had made in Municipal Court and to enter a plea of not guilty. The motion was denied and respondent brought case before the Supreme Judicial Court upon exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
Richard S. Chapman, County Atty. for Cumberland County, and Daniel C. McDonald, Asst. County Atty. for Cumberland County, both of Portland, for the State.
Elton H. Thompson and Harry E. Nixon, both of Portland, for respondent.
Before STURGIS, C. J., THAXTER, MURCHIE, TOMPKINS, FELLOWS, JJ., and MANSER, Acting Retired Justice.
The respondent was arrested upon the charge of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and on the following day was brought before the Municipal Court of Brunswick to answer to the charge.
From the record, it clearly appears that the respondent was a man holding a responsible position, intelligent, and at the time of his arraignment, in full possession of his faculties. He pleaded guilty, whereupon the Judge of the Court imposed the minimum sentence of a fine of $100 and costs which he paid. The Court had full jurisdiction of the case and authority to impose the sentence.
Later in the day respondent consulted an attorney who entered an appeal to the Superior Court for Cumberland County. The respondent there filed a motion, addressed to the Presiding Justice, to be allowed to withdraw the plea of Guilty which he had made in the Municipal Court, and to enter a plea of Not Guilty. Upon hearing, the motion was denied and the case comes up upon exceptions.
Counsel for the respondent had evidently sought no reopening of the case or withdrawal of plea of Guilty in the Municipal Court, or if he had, his effort was without success.
The issues raised are,
1. Can a respondent who has pleaded Guilty and paid the minimum fine imposed by a Court of competent jurisdiction, thereafter enter an appeal to the Superior Court?
2. If so, was the denial by the Justice of the Superior Court of a motion to withdraw his plea, an abuse of discretion?
The first issue has not been passed upon by our Court and as there is some conflict of authority, it merits consideration as to the reasoning, logic and basis of the diverging opinions. As stated in 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1668:
Cases cited to this text are: State v. Schreiber, 5 W.W.Harr. 424, 35 Del. 424, 166 A. 669; Wilhite v. Judy, 137 Kan. 589, 21 P.2d 317; People v. Melovicz, 221 Mich. 620, 192 N.W. 562; People v. Ortwski, 220 Mich. 462, 190 N.W. 239; Berume v. Hughes, Tex.Civ.App., 275 S.W. 268; King v. State, 97 Tex.Cr.R. 404, 261 S.W. 1118. The same text will be found in 17 C.J., Criminal Law, Sec. 3327; 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1668, with many earlier authorities there cited.
In the Schreiber case, supra, which is on all fours as to the facts with the instant case, the defendant voluntarily paid the fines and costs imposed on him by reason of his plea of guilty, and it was, therefore, held that he had waived his right of appeal. The Court also alluded to the contention that the revocation of a driver's license ordinarily follows a conviction of driving while intoxicated, and that the defendant has a right to clear himself of that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bennett v. State
... ... See, State of Maine v. Osborne, 1947, 143 Me. 10, 54 A.2d 526. We do not view the instant case as falling within the concepts of Peyton, Sibron and Carafas, supra ... The entry will be ... Appeal dismissed ... All Justices concurring ... --------------- ... 1 By Public Laws, ... ...
-
State v. Jordan
... ... See id. at 862 ... ¶11 Maine law clearly establishes that an appeal from a judgment of conviction by a defendant who voluntarily completed his sentence is moot. See, e.g., State v. Snowman, 1997 ME 184, pp 3, 5, 698 A.2d 1057, 1058; State v. Osborne, 143 Me. 10, 14, 54 A.2d 526, 528 (1947). Citing Snowman and Osborne, the trial court engaged in the following mootness analysis: ... [if] the interest of a [defendant] to be free from an allegedly erroneous criminal finding is insufficient to overcome the courts' reluctance to decide matters of ... ...
-
Lewis v. State
... ... Compare State v. Snowman, 1997 Me 184, ¶ 5, 698 A.2d 1057, 1058 (holding that defendant had voluntarily served her sentence when she completed a term of probation that had, at her request, been reinstated over a stay issued during the pendency of her appeal); State v. Osborne, 143 Me. 10, 54 A.2d 526 (1947) (holding that voluntary payment of a fine caused appeal to become moot) with State v. York, 1999 ME 100, ¶ 6, 732 A.2d 859, 861 ("[A] defendant ... who involuntarily serves a sentence has an interest in avoiding the collateral consequences of a conviction."). Lewis ... ...
-
Abbott v. State, 33711
... ... The defendant voluntarily paid the fine and costs imposed on him by reason of his plea of guilty and [160 Neb. 279] has, therefore, waived his right of appeal in this case.' ... In State v. Osborne, 143 Me. 10, 54 A.2d 526, 527, the court reviewed many of the earlier decisions and held: 'The great weight of authority is that voluntary guilty plea, followed by payment of fine imposed terminates the action and precludes a review of the conviction.' With reference to the so-called minority ... ...