Heier v. State

Decided March 25, 1919

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1919-03-25

<p>Criminal Law. — Sentence.—Place of Imprisonment.- — Objection. —A defendant, convicted of violating the “Blind Tiger” Act, should have presented the alleged error that he was sentenced to the county jail instead of the penal farm by a motion to modify the judgment and not by a motion for new trial.</p>

Relies on Hunt v. State

Affirmed · Decided 1919-03-25

Townsend, J.

¶1— Appellant was convicted of a violation of what is commonly known as the “Blind Tiger” Law and sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and imprisoned in the county jail for thirty days.

¶2It is his contention that he should have been sentenced *173to the penal farm. He attempts to present this question by a motion for a new trial.

¶3An objection to place of imprisonment should have been presented by a motion to modify the judgment. Hunt v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 644, 117 N. E. 856.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

¶5Note. — Reported in 122 N. E. 578. See 97 Am. St. 371, 16 C. J. 1314.