Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

101 Miss. 269

Hoggett v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1911

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1911-10-15

Hon. Patjl B. Johnson, -Judge. Emma Hoggett was convicted of unlawful retailing. The sentence of the court was suspended for a while and at the next term of the court imposed, and she appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. I most respectfully submit that the judgment of the lower court is illegal and void, and that this cause should be reversed, and the defendant discharged. The court has no power to arbitrarily exile a person.

Relies on Gibson v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1911-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1984

14 state decisions

5019111920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Smith, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2Appellant having entered a plea of guilty to an .indictment charging her with the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, the court, instead of imposing sentence immediately, ordered that the same be suspended, “provided the defendant leaves and remains away from Forrest county, Miss.” At a later term of the court, on motion of the district attorney, sentence was imposed upon appellant on this plea entered at the former term. From this last judgment this appeal is taken.

¶3Her complaint is that the court was without authority to suspend the imposition of the sentence, and that by having done so it has lost jurisdiction to proceed further in the cause, and that, if mistaken in this, the second judgment was entered without any evidence being introduced tending to show that she had failed to leave and remain away from Forrest county. Suspending the imposition of a sentence is nothing more than a continuance of a case after plea or verdict of guilty for sentence at a later time. It is unnecessary for us to decide what the rights of appellant would have been, had the court below arbitrarily and over her objection continued her case after her plea of guilty had been entered for sentence at a subsequent term, for the reason that appellant did not object to this course being pursued, and, consequently, she cannot now complain thereat. “Con-census tollit errorem.” Gibson v. State, 68 Miss. 241, 8 South. 329.

¶4The proviso contained in the order suspending the sentence was void. What was this day said in the case of Fuller v. State, 57 South. 806, relative to the power of a court to suspend the execution of a sentence, applies with equal force to the power of the court to indefinitely suspend the imposition of a sentence after plea or verdict of guilty. The case remained in the same attitude, therefore as if had simply been continued for sentence with appellant’s consent.

¶5*272It does not appear that appellant was induced to plead guilty by reason of any expectation on her part that the imposition of sentence would be suspended. .What her rights, therefore, would have been, in that state of case, is not here involved. Affirmed.

¶6Suggestion of error overruled.

/101/miss/269 · .json · Public domain