Lee v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lee v. State

133 S.E. 281, 35 Ga. App. 235, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 653

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 14, 1926

Docket17069

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 133 S.E. 281 (Lee 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

Lee v. State, 133 S.E. 281, 35 Ga. App. 235, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 653 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The plaintiff in error was charged with manufacturing whisky, and the jury returned the following verdict: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty [and] ask [the] mercy of the court.” Thereupon the accused was given a misdemeanor sentence. At the same term of the court he presented a motion to arrest the judgment, based upon the allegation that the verdict was not a legal one, under the indeterminate-sentence statute, in that no minimum and maximum penalty was fixed by the verdict. The motion was overruled and the defendant excepted. Held: The verdict was not in proper form, and the judge should have sent the jury back to their room with instructions to fix a minimum and maximum penalty. Mitchell v. State, 34 Ga. App. 505 (130 S. E. 355). However, as the judge followed the recommendation of the jury and imposed a misdemeanor sentence, the defendant has no cause to complain, and the refusal to arrest the judgment was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulce, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., not participating, on account of illness.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The plaintiff in error was charged with manufacturing whisky, and the jury returned the following verdict: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty [and] ask [the] mercy of the court.” Thereupon the accused was given a misdemeanor sentence. At the same term of the court he presented a motion to arrest the judgment, based upon the allegation that the verdict was not a legal one, under the indeterminate-sentence statute, in that no minimum and maximum penalty was fixed by the verdict. The motion was overruled and the defendant excepted. Held: The verdict was not in proper form, and the judge should have sent the jury back to their room with instructions to fix a minimum and maximum penalty. Mitchell v. State, 34 Ga. App. 505 (130 S. E. 355). However, as the judge followed the recommendation of the jury and imposed a misdemeanor sentence, the defendant has no cause to complain, and the refusal to arrest the judgment was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulce, J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., not participating, on account of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 S.E. 281, 35 Ga. App. 235, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-state-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack