Dixon v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dixon v. State

63 S.E.2d 278, 83 Ga. App. 227, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 839

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 27, 1951

Docket33244

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 63 S.E.2d 278 (Dixon v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dixon v. State, 63 S.E.2d 278, 83 Ga. App. 227, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 839 (Ga. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, P.J.

1. “The fact that that portion of the verdict which fixed the term of punishment was written below the signature of the foreman does not invalidate the verdict. Simpson v. State, 34 Ga. App. [228]*228487 (130 S. E. 215); Heaton v.. State, 37 Ga. App. 195 (4) (139 S. E. 103).” McKenzie v. State, 38 Ga. App. 200 (2) (143 S. E. 442).

Decided January 27, 1951.

2. The fact that the verdict recommended the term of punishment, instead of prescribing the punishment, does not vitiate the verdict. A substantial compliance with the statute is all that is required. Edwards v. State, 64 Ga. App. 266, 267 (13 S. E. 2d, 39).

3. The fact that the court, in sentencing the defendant, assigned him or ordered him delivered to the Prison Commission, which commission has been abolished, instead of assigning him or ordering him delivered to the State Board of Corrections, which board succeeded to the powers and duties of the commission, while not technically in the proper form, is not such an irregularity as is hurtful to any right of liberty, nor is it such a defect as to vitiate the sentence and deprive the defendant of due process of law under either the State or Federal Constitution. See, in this connection, Stewart v. Sanders, 199 Ga. 497 (2) (34 S. E. 2d, 649); and, for the various acts creating the Prison Commission, changing its name, and conferring upon its successors the powers exercised by it, see the following: Ga. L. 1897, p. 71; Ga. L., 1937-38, Ex. Sess., p. 195; Ga. L., 1939, p. 106; Ga. L. 1941, p. 273; Ga. L. 1943, p. 210; Ga. L. 1946, p. 46.

From what has been ruled above, it follows that the trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrers and in dismissing the motion to set aside the judgment, sentence, and verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner and Townsend, JJ., concur. J. D. Godfrey, Casey Thigpen, for plaintiff in error. J. Cecil Davis, Solicitor-General, contra.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MacIntyre, P.J.

1. “The fact that that portion of the verdict which fixed the term of punishment was written below the signature of the foreman does not invalidate the verdict. Simpson v. State, 34 Ga. App. [228]*228487 (130 S. E. 215); Heaton v.. State, 37 Ga. App. 195 (4) (139 S. E. 103).” McKenzie v. State, 38 Ga. App. 200 (2) (143 S. E. 442).

Decided January 27, 1951.

2. The fact that the verdict recommended the term of punishment, instead of prescribing the punishment, does not vitiate the verdict. A substantial compliance with the statute is all that is required. Edwards v. State, 64 Ga. App. 266, 267 (13 S. E. 2d, 39).

3. The fact that the court, in sentencing the defendant, assigned him or ordered him delivered to the Prison Commission, which commission has been abolished, instead of assigning him or ordering him delivered to the State Board of Corrections, which board succeeded to the powers and duties of the commission, while not technically in the proper form, is not such an irregularity as is hurtful to any right of liberty, nor is it such a defect as to vitiate the sentence and deprive the defendant of due process of law under either the State or Federal Constitution. See, in this connection, Stewart v. Sanders, 199 Ga. 497 (2) (34 S. E. 2d, 649); and, for the various acts creating the Prison Commission, changing its name, and conferring upon its successors the powers exercised by it, see the following: Ga. L. 1897, p. 71; Ga. L., 1937-38, Ex. Sess., p. 195; Ga. L., 1939, p. 106; Ga. L. 1941, p. 273; Ga. L. 1943, p. 210; Ga. L. 1946, p. 46.

From what has been ruled above, it follows that the trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrers and in dismissing the motion to set aside the judgment, sentence, and verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner and Townsend, JJ., concur. J. D. Godfrey, Casey Thigpen, for plaintiff in error. J. Cecil Davis, Solicitor-General, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 S.E.2d 278, 83 Ga. App. 227, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixon-v-state-gactapp-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack