Thomas v. State, s. 5266--5273
| Decision Date | 02 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 5266--5273,s. 5266--5273 |
| Citation | 243 Ark. 147,418 S.W.2d 792 |
| Parties | Thorp THOMAS et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, Little Rock, for appellants.
Joe Purcell, Atty. Gen., Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
The appellants, Thorp Thomas, Chester Boyer, Leon Brents, Charles F. Wells, Everett Hamm, Jr., and Gene Wirges, bring their separate appeals, consolidated here, challenging the authority of the trial court to assess court costs against them upon dismissal of criminal charges against them.
Except for the insertion of the individual names of appellants the orders entered by the trial court read, '* * * it is by the Court * * * ordered * * * that the indictment against the said Thorp Thomas be dismissed and that Thorp Thomas be discharged, upon payment of costs.'
The order assessing court costs against the defendant upon dismissal of the indictment is void and of no effect, Melton v. State, 30 Ala.App. 136, 1 So.2d 920 (1941), and is a violation of due process of law, Giaccio v. State of Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399, 86 S.Ct. 518, 15 L.Ed.2d 447 (1966). Nor was any objection necessary since the court exceeded its authority, Sibley v. Leek, 45 Ark. 346 (1885).
Reversed and dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gillette v. City of Fort Smith
...16-90-111(a) must demonstrate that his or her sentence was illegal. Redus v. State, 2019 Ark. 44, 566 S.W.3d 469. Relying on the ruling in Thomas, that his sentence was void at time it was imposed, Gillette properly challenged the legality of his de facto sentence and should have been heard......
-
Parker v. Laws, 5--5372
...not only was there no sentence being suspended, but also the exaction was contrary to the rule of law stated in Thomas as v. State, 243 Ark. 147, 418 S.W.2d 792 (1967), to the effect that an order assessing court costs against the defendant upon dismissal of the indictment is void and a den......
-
McKinney v. City of El Dorado, 91-256
...not only was there no sentence being suspended, but also the exaction was contrary to the rule of law stated in Thomas v. State, 243 Ark. 147, 418 S.W.2d 792 (1967), to the effect that an order assessing court costs against the defendant upon dismissal of the indictment is void and a denial......
-
Anderson v. City of El Dorado, 5282
... ... and is punishable upon the second and each subsequent conviction by imprisonment in the State Prison not exceeding five (5) years.' ... Appellant was first tried and convicted ... ...