Layne v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Layne v. Commonwealth

239 S.W.2d 939, 1951 Ky. LEXIS 909

DecidedMay 15, 1951

StatusPublished

This text of 239 S.W.2d 939 (Layne v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Layne v. Commonwealth, 239 S.W.2d 939, 1951 Ky. LEXIS 909 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

Jack Layne pleaded guilty to a charge of breaking into a storehouse. His punishment was fixed at three years in prison. This appeal is prosecuted on the ground that Layne understood and believed that he would receive a two yeár sentence upon his plea' of guilty. As agreed, the Commonwealth’s Attorney recommended a two year sentence for Layne, but the jury fixed his punishment at three years.

We were confronted with a similar situation in the case of Hayes v. Commonwealth, 305 Ky. 108, 203 S.W.2d 1. In that, case we pointed out that a jury is not bound by an agreement made between an accused and a prosecutor; and, further, that the sole power of fixing punishment within tfie limits prescribed by law lies with the jury. In the Hayes case the members of the jury had remained silent when asked whether or not they would abide by the recommendation of the Commonwealth’s Attorney. But, even in that case, we affirmed the judgment based upon the verdict of the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

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

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

Jack Layne pleaded guilty to a charge of breaking into a storehouse. His punishment was fixed at three years in prison. This appeal is prosecuted on the ground that Layne understood and believed that he would receive a two yeár sentence upon his plea' of guilty. As agreed, the Commonwealth’s Attorney recommended a two year sentence for Layne, but the jury fixed his punishment at three years.

We were confronted with a similar situation in the case of Hayes v. Commonwealth, 305 Ky. 108, 203 S.W.2d 1. In that, case we pointed out that a jury is not bound by an agreement made between an accused and a prosecutor; and, further, that the sole power of fixing punishment within tfie limits prescribed by law lies with the jury. In the Hayes case the members of the jury had remained silent when asked whether or not they would abide by the recommendation of the Commonwealth’s Attorney. But, even in that case, we affirmed the judgment based upon the verdict of the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 S.W.2d 939, 1951 Ky. LEXIS 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/layne-v-commonwealth-kyctapp-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack