Stratton v. Com.
| Decision Date | 18 December 1953 |
| Citation | 263 S.W.2d 99 |
| Parties | STRATTON v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
E. R. Gregory, Bowling Green, for appellant.
J. D. Buckman, Atty. Gen., W. Owen Keller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant, Henry Stratton, was found guilty of the third violation of local option laws contained in Chapter 242 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes and under KRS 242.990, which fixes the punishment for the violation of local option laws, his punishment was fixed at 1 year in the penitentiary. From this judgment he appeals.
On August 8, 1950, judgment was entered in the Allen Circuit Court upon a plea of guilty to a charge against the defendant of having in his possession whiskey for the purpose of sale (second offense) under which he was fined $50 and sentenced to 60 days in jail. The record discloses that appellant had theretofore been fined $20 and confined in the county jail for a period of 30 days and, although it is not too clear that this sentence resulted from a violation of local option laws in dry territory, the parties proceeded upon the assumption that it had. In any event, the judgment of August 8, 1950, was upon a conviction for the second violation of local option laws in dry territory.
On the night of August 22, 1951, the sheriff of Allen County and a detective from the State Police Department were cruising along Highway 231 in Allen County at a low rate of speed when a car crossed the yellow line on a curve and passed them. They overtook the car, stopped it and found that Henry Stratton, who was known to them, was driving. He was asked for his driver's license and then was asked what he was hauling. He answered, 'Some beer.' The officers asked to see it and he questioned, 'Have you a search warrant'? They replied that they did not have one but could get one and told him that if he wanted to volunteer to open up, it would be all right but if he didn't, they would get a search warrant. Stratton said he didn't want to be 'exposed' and unlocked the trunk of the car where was found 10 half cases containing 120 cans of beer in all. The officer placed no charge against Stratton for reckless driving or passing on a yellow line but charged him with transporting beer in dry local option territory.
During the 1952 September term of the Allen Circuit Court, which was held more than a year after he was arrested in August, 1951, Stratton was indicted for the third violation of provisions of Chapter 242 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes which deal with local option laws. Section 242.990 of that chapter fixes the penalties for such violations as follows: For first offense--a fine of not less than $20 nor more than $100 and imprisonment for not less than 30 days nor more than 60 days; For second offense--a fine of not less than $40 nor more than $200 and imprisonment for not less than 60 days nor more than 120 days; For third and each subsequent offense--confinement in penitentiary for not less than 1 nor more than 2 years.
Appellant argues that violations penalized by the statute are separate misdemeanors of equal dignity in reaching the final result and that the third offense must be charged within 1 year of the return of the indictment just as must be done in connection with any other misdemeanor and it is only upon a finding of guilty of the third offense that the penalty of a felony is imposed. We cannot accept this thesis. Public offenses are any acts or omissions for which the law has prescribed a punishment. These offenses are grouped under two classifications--felonies and misdemeanors. A felony is an offense for which the punishment is death or confinement in the penitentiary and all other public offenses are misdemeanors. Criminal Code of Practice, Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7. Therefore, when the legislature prescribed a penalty of confinement in the penitentiary for the third offense, it placed this crime in the category of a felony. KRS 431.090 provides that prosecutions for felonies,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Strouth
...(1954), 126 F.Supp. 845, 846 4, citing Higgins v. United States, (1954), 93 U.S.App.D.C. 340, 209 F.2d 819, 820 2; Stratton v. Commonwealth (1953, Ky.), 263 S.W.2d 99; Raulie v. State (1932), 122 Tex.Cr.R. 348, 55 S.W.2d 562. Indeed, although it was unnecessary for his agreement for the off......
-
Young v. Knight
...specifically defines all offenses other than felonies 'whether at common law or made so by statute' as misdemeanors. See Stratton v. Commonwealth, Ky., 263 S.W.2d 99. Refusal of a witness to answer may be punished as a contempt of court, with prescribed penalties. KRS 421.110, 421.140, 432.......
-
Janklow v. Keller
...to be only whether or not there is in question an act or omission for which the law has prescribed a punishment, Stratton v. Commonwealth, 1953, Ky., 263 S.W.2d 99, or whether or not an act has been committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it. West v. Territory, 1......