Schaefer v. State

Decided July 1, 1905

Ohio Circuit Courts · decided 1905-07-01

Upon the question as to whether or not a judge or court has a right, after the expiration of the term of court at which a sentence was pronounced against a prisoner, to order the same carried into execution. Weber v. State, 58 Ohio St. 616 [51 N. E. Rep. 116; 41 L. R. A. 472]; Brown, Jurisdiction (2 ed.) Sec. 13a; Church, Habeas Corpus See. 378; Williams, Ex parte, 26 Fla. 310 [8 So. Rep. 425]; United States v. Wilson, 46 Fed. Rep. 748; Commonwealth v. Mayloy, 57 Pa.

Relies on 68 Ohio St. 510 - Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railway Co. v. City of Troy

Decided 1905-07-01

DUSTIN, J.

¶1It having been established in Ohio that a court may, in indefinite terms, suspend the execution of a sentence in a criminal case, State v. Allen, 68 Ohio St. 516 [67 N. E. Rep. 1053], we think it follows that the same judge may revoke the suspension, on his own motion, at any time even after term.

¶2But even if the conditional suspension cannot extend beyond the term, the sentence is not thereby invalidated and can be carried into execution at any time.

¶3The views of Judge Dillon on this question, in the Lee case, seem to us to be sound.

¶4The judgment of the common pleas court is therefore affirmed.

Wilson and Sullivan, JJ., concur.