Steadman v. State

• Decision Date: 08 November 1948
• Docket Number: 36865.
• Citation: 204 Miss. 322,37 So.2d 357
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: STEADMAN v. STATE.

37 So.2d 357

204 Miss. 322

STEADMAN v. STATE.

No. 36865.

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 8, 1948

Homer Pittman, of Hattiesburg, for appellant.

Greek L. Rice, Atty. Gen., and R. O. Arrington Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

L. A SMITH, Sr., Justice.

When this litigation was initiated, appellant was at large under the following judgment of the County Court of Forrest County:

'Comes the County Prosecuting Attorney who prosecutes for the State and the Defendant in his own proper person and by his counsel and upon being arraigned at the bar of the court on said charge for plea thereto plead guilty and now being placed before the bar of the court and asked if they had anything to say why the sentence of the court should not be pronounced against him had naught to say. It is therefore considered by the court and so ordered that Jimmie Steadman be fined the sum of One Hundred Dollars and all costs of court and to serve for a period of ninety days on the County Road, the ninety days being suspended on good behavior. Mrs. Ernestine Scott Steadman ordered to serve for a period of ninety days on the County Road, the days being suspended on good behavior.'

Attention is called specifically to the fact that the judgment recites an unconditional plea of guilty, and a definite assessment of punishment in the form of a fine and imprisonment. This complete and valid judgment of the court is however, followed by a suspension of the imprisonment on condition of the good behavior of the convict, appellant here.

The county attorney later, with a purpose to have the county court revoke the suspension of the sentence, conditioned upon good behavior, filed a petition therein, praying a citation against appellant requiring him to show cause why such revocation should not be had because of his alleged violation of the condition, in that he had, since its grant, been guilty of assault and battery and also of possession of an unregistered pistol. Appellant answered, denying the charges testimony was had and the county court judge convicted appellant under such proceedings. An appeal was taken to the circuit court, and failing to obtain relief there, the case is now before us on appeal therefrom.

The assignments of errors are two: that the county court erred in accepting a conditional plea of guilty, and thereafter revoking an unlawful suspended sentence; and that the circuit court erred in dismissing 'the appellant's appeal from the county court with a writ of procendendo, on the grounds that an appeal does not lie from judgment revoking a suspension of sentence, wherein in truth and in fact, the said suspended sentence was unlawful and prohibited under Section 2659 of the 1942 Code.'

That section provides that 'it shall be unlawful for any justice of the peace or judge of county court, with or without condition, to suspend any sentence lawfully imposed under this chapter.' It will be borne in mind that the judgment was a lawful one, lawfully imposing a valid sentence, on an unconditional plea of guilty, and that only the execution of that part thereof involving imprisonment was suspended during good behavior. It is, of course, argued here, in view of the assignment of errors, that this suspension of the execution of part of the sentence invalidates the whole judgment. It is also argued that the plea of guilty was conditional, which is refuted by the unqualified statement in the judgment that the defendant 'plead guilty.'

The point of appellant...