Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

108 Me. 136

State v. Stickney

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided March 15, 1911

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1911-03-15

On exceptions by defendant. The defendant was arrested and arraigned on a warrant issued by Municipal Court of the City of Augusta, charging a single sale of intoxicating liquors and further alleging that said Stickney has been previously convicted of a single sale of intoxicating liquors in the Municipal Court of Augusta on the 7th day of January A. D. 1909.” Upon conviction in the Municipal Court, he appealed to the Superior Court in the same county, where after trial…

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1966

4 state decisions

Relies on Perry v. People · Commonwealth v. Swain · Territory v. Corbett

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Overruled · Decided 1911-03-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Emery, C. J.

¶1The respondent was tried and convicted upon a complaint for a single sale of intoxicating liquor and containing an allegation of a prior conviction of a similar offense. He does not appear to have made any objection before verdict to the sufficiency of that allegation, nor does he appear to have brought the question of its sufficiency to the attention of the court before sentence. After *137sentence, however, he filed a motion in arrest of judgment upon the ground of the insufficiency of that allegation to warrant the sentence.

¶2The motion cannot be considered. It was filed after judgment, and hence too late. The sentence is the judgment of the court in a criminal case where there is a conviction. A motion in arrest of judgment is not the remedy for the correction of errors in a sentence. Galeo v. State, 107 Maine, 474, 78 At. 867; State v. Kibling, 63 Vt. 636; State v. O’Neil, 66 Vt. 356; Perry v. The People, 14 Ill. 496; Territory v. Corbett, 3 Mont. 50; Com. v. Swain, 160 Mass. 354.

¶3Exceptions overruled.

/108/me/136 · .json · Public domain