State v. Swikert
| Decision Date | 03 June 1913 |
| Citation | 65 Or. 286,132 P. 709 |
| Parties | STATE v. SWIKERT. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Union County; J.W. Knowles, Judge.
Norman Swikert was convicted of larceny, and he appeals. Reversed and cause remanded, with directions to render judgment.
Turner Oliver, of La Grande, for appellant.
I.H Van Winkle, Asst. Atty. Gen. (F.S. Ivanhoe, Dist. Atty, of La Grande, on the brief), for the State.
Defendant was charged with the crime of larceny of sheep, pleaded not guilty, and upon the trial was convicted. The court gave judgment against him thereon that he be confined in the penitentiary without limitation, and that he pay a fine of $50. He was thereupon paroled by the court from the effects of the sentence to the penitentiary, conditioned upon payment of the fine, which he immediately paid. Defendant appeals.
The cause was presented by defendant, by his brief as well as argument, upon many alleged errors occurring at the trial; but, as there is no bill of exceptions contained in the record, we cannot review such alleged errors.
The state moved to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the judgment appealed from has been satisfied. Although defendant does not assign it as error, in his brief he complains that the judgment is void for the reason that section 1950, L O.L., under which defendant was indicted and sentenced provides for an alternative judgment of imprisonment in the penitentiary, of imprisonment in the county jail, or by a fine, and that the judgment rendered is for an imprisonment in the penitentiary and a fine. By section 1371, L. O.L., it is provided: Thus, although he has been released upon payment of the fine, the conviction and judgment against him remains a felony, and the parole may be revoked by the court under certain conditions.
The payment of the fine was payment under duress equivalent to a payment under protest. It was made to avoid being sent to the penitentiary, and was a satisfaction of the judgment only pro tanto, which still stands against him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hunter
...jurisdiction below. Jurisdictional challenges are never waived; they may be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Swikert, 65 Or. 286, 288, 132 P. 709 (1913); State v. Rudder/Webb, 137 Or.App. 43, 48, 903 P.2d 393 (1995), rev. allowed 322 Or. 489, 909 P.2d 161 (1996). However, there......
-
State v. Morris
...question, our conclusion is in accord with the decisions in Perry v. State, 62 Ga.App. 115, 8 S.E.2d 425 (1940) and State v. Swikert, 65 Or. 286, 132 P. 709 (1913), and we have found no convincing authority to the contrary. Cf. State v. Massa, 90 Kan. 129, 132 P. 1182 Furthermore, although ......
-
State v. Webb
...may be raised for the first time on appeal. Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or. 376, 383, 823 P.2d 956 (1991); State v. Swikert, 65 Or. 286, 288, 132 P. 709 (1913). In 1993, the legislature amended ORS 161.635 to raise the maximum fine for a Class A misdemeanor from $2,500 to $5,000, e......
-
State v. Rudder
...jurisdiction for the first time on appeal. Wilson v. Matthews, 291 Or. 33, 35 n. 1, 628 P.2d 393 (1981); State v. Swikert, 65 Or. 286, 288, 132 P. 709 (1913). Our holding in Rudder requires reversal of Webb's conviction for theft in the second degree unless, as the state argues, Senate Bill......