State ex rel. Nordstrom v. Superintendent of Workhouse of Minneapolis

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State ex rel. Nordstrom v. Superintendent of Workhouse of Minneapolis

178 N.W. 610, 146 Minn. 140, 1920 Minn. LEXIS 572

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJuly 17, 1920

DocketNo. 22,038

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 178 N.W. 610 (State ex rel. Nordstrom v. Superintendent of Workhouse of Minneapolis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Nordstrom v. Superintendent of Workhouse of Minneapolis, 178 N.W. 610, 146 Minn. 140, 1920 Minn. LEXIS 572 (Mich. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

PER Cueiam.

Defendant was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $500 and in default thereof to be confined in the workhouse for a term not to exceed one year. On appeal, the trial court was in all things affirmed, except that this court held the sentence excessive in that the imprisonment in case of nonpayment of the fine could not exceed six months. In disposing of the ease the court said: "The judgment and sentence should be modified accordingly. Subject to this modification the judgment is affirmed.” It appears that the trial court thereupon discharged the relator on a writ of habeas corpus and then sentenced him to pay .a fine of $200, and in default of payment to be confined in the workhouse not exceeding two and one-half months. Defendant, contending that the sentence was void, sued out a writ of habeas corpus.

It was our intention by the order disposing of the appeal to affirm the conviction and the sentence, subject to the modification indicated, and to remand the case for such modification. The subsequent action of the trial court did not conform technically to this procedure, but the difference was of form rather than of substance. The second sentence was not void and only technically irregular.

[142]*142The action of the court in reducing the fine was favorable to defendant and of that he cannot complain.

Defendant contends that some of the evidence produced against defendant on the trial was procured by search of defendant’s premises without a warrant, and that such evidence should not have been received on the trial. If defendant had any such objection the time to make it was on the trial, and the time to review it was on appeal from the judgment of conviction. The reception of inadmissible evidence does not render a judgment subject to collateral attack in a habeas corpus proceeding.

Affirmed.

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

PER Cueiam.

Defendant was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $500 and in default thereof to be confined in the workhouse for a term not to exceed one year. On appeal, the trial court was in all things affirmed, except that this court held the sentence excessive in that the imprisonment in case of nonpayment of the fine could not exceed six months. In disposing of the ease the court said: "The judgment and sentence should be modified accordingly. Subject to this modification the judgment is affirmed.” It appears that the trial court thereupon discharged the relator on a writ of habeas corpus and then sentenced him to pay .a fine of $200, and in default of payment to be confined in the workhouse not exceeding two and one-half months. Defendant, contending that the sentence was void, sued out a writ of habeas corpus.

It was our intention by the order disposing of the appeal to affirm the conviction and the sentence, subject to the modification indicated, and to remand the case for such modification. The subsequent action of the trial court did not conform technically to this procedure, but the difference was of form rather than of substance. The second sentence was not void and only technically irregular.

[142]*142The action of the court in reducing the fine was favorable to defendant and of that he cannot complain.

Defendant contends that some of the evidence produced against defendant on the trial was procured by search of defendant’s premises without a warrant, and that such evidence should not have been received on the trial. If defendant had any such objection the time to make it was on the trial, and the time to review it was on appeal from the judgment of conviction. The reception of inadmissible evidence does not render a judgment subject to collateral attack in a habeas corpus proceeding.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 N.W. 610, 146 Minn. 140, 1920 Minn. LEXIS 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-nordstrom-v-superintendent-of-workhouse-of-minneapolis-minn-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack