State v. Colopy

Supreme Court of Kansas

State v. Colopy

242 P. 1016, 120 Kan. 220, 1926 Kan. LEXIS 337

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedFebruary 6, 1926

DocketNo. 26,283

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 242 P. 1016 (State v. Colopy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Colopy, 242 P. 1016, 120 Kan. 220, 1926 Kan. LEXIS 337 (kan 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mason, J.:

Charles Colopy appeals from a conviction of violating the intoxicating liquor law after having been convicted of a like offense.

1. He contends he was not shown to be the same person who had been previously convicted. He was prosecuted in the present case under the name above given. The defendant in the earlier case was described in the complaint, as shown by entries in the docket of the justice of the peace, as C. W. Colopy. But he was described as Charles Colopy in the sheriff’s return on the warrant and as Charles W. Colopy in the recital of his plea of guilty and in the sentence. This is sufficient to show prima facie that the first name of the person proceeded against in the earlier case was Charles, and a presumption on that account may be indulged that he is the defendant in the present action. (State v. Bizer, 113 Kan. 731, 216 Pac. 303.)

2. The defendant also asserts that the present action is barred by the statute of limitation (R. S. 62-503) because it was begun [221]*221more than two years after the first conviction. This is not a proceeding to punish the defendant for the prior offense. His previous violation of the law forms no part of the act for which he is now prosecuted. It places him, however, in a class which is subject to a more severe punishment than first offenders, and has no connection with the running of the statute of limitation for a later offense. (State v. Adams, 89 Kan. 674, 132 Pac. 171, and cases cited in State v. Briggs, 94 Kan. 92, 95, 145 Pac. 866, especially State v. Schmidt, 92 Kan. 457, 140 Pac. 843.)

The judgment is affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mason, J.:

Charles Colopy appeals from a conviction of violating the intoxicating liquor law after having been convicted of a like offense.

1. He contends he was not shown to be the same person who had been previously convicted. He was prosecuted in the present case under the name above given. The defendant in the earlier case was described in the complaint, as shown by entries in the docket of the justice of the peace, as C. W. Colopy. But he was described as Charles Colopy in the sheriff’s return on the warrant and as Charles W. Colopy in the recital of his plea of guilty and in the sentence. This is sufficient to show prima facie that the first name of the person proceeded against in the earlier case was Charles, and a presumption on that account may be indulged that he is the defendant in the present action. (State v. Bizer, 113 Kan. 731, 216 Pac. 303.)

2. The defendant also asserts that the present action is barred by the statute of limitation (R. S. 62-503) because it was begun [221]*221more than two years after the first conviction. This is not a proceeding to punish the defendant for the prior offense. His previous violation of the law forms no part of the act for which he is now prosecuted. It places him, however, in a class which is subject to a more severe punishment than first offenders, and has no connection with the running of the statute of limitation for a later offense. (State v. Adams, 89 Kan. 674, 132 Pac. 171, and cases cited in State v. Briggs, 94 Kan. 92, 95, 145 Pac. 866, especially State v. Schmidt, 92 Kan. 457, 140 Pac. 843.)

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 P. 1016, 120 Kan. 220, 1926 Kan. LEXIS 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-colopy-kan-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack