Home/New York Court of General Session of the Peace/State v. Schreiber

State v. Schreiber

166 A. 669, 35 Del. 424, 5 W.W. Harr. 424, 1933 Del. LEXIS 24
CourtNew York Court of General Session of the Peace
DecidedMay 10, 1933
DocketNo. 43
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 166 A. 669 (State v. Schreiber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of General Session of the Peace primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Schreiber, 166 A. 669, 35 Del. 424, 5 W.W. Harr. 424, 1933 Del. LEXIS 24 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1933).

Opinion

Harrington, J.,

delivering the opinion of the Court:

Article 4 of Section 30 of the Constitution of 1897 gives the General Assembly the right to “grant or deny the privilege of appeal to the Court of General Sessions.”

Pursuant to this provision, Section 146, c. 10, Vol. 36, Laws of Delaware, provides:

“Any person convicted under the provisions of this Act shall have the right of an appeal unless otherwise stated in this Act, to the Court of General Sessions of the County, upon giving bond in the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) to the State with surety-satisfactory to the Mayor, Justice of the Peace or Judge before whom such person was committed. Such appeal to be taken and bond given within five (5) days from the time of conviction.”

This provision of the statute is clearly for the benefit of the person convicted and may, therefore, be waived by him.

The defendant voluntarily paid the fine and costs imposed on him by reason of his plea of guilty and has, therefore, waived his right of appeal in this case. State v. Cohen, [426]*42645 Nev. 266, 201 P. 1027, 18 A. L. R. 864; Ann. Cas. 1913E, 300, Note; State v. People’s Ice Co., 127 Minn. 252, 149 N. W. 286, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 618; 17 C. J. 48, §§ 3326, 3327.

Conceding that there may be some cases that have adopted a contrary rule (Com. v. Fleckner, 167 Mass. 13, 44 N. E. 1053; Johnson v. State, 172 Ala. 424, 55 So. 226, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 296; People v. Marks, 64 Misc. 679, 120 N. F. S. 1106) they do not represent the weight of authority, or, as I view it, the most reasonable view of the matter.

The defendant points out that under the Motor Vehicle Act (Sections 66, 81), the revocation of a driver’s license automatically follows a conviction of driving while intoxicated and contends that he has the right to clear himself of that stigma. But it is not even contended that that is a part of the sentence imposed by the lower court.

The State’s motion to dismiss the appeal is, therefore, granted.

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

Related

Norton v. State
197 N.E.2d 297 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1964)
State v. Superior Court of Maricopa County
380 P.2d 1009 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1963)
State ex rel. Geschwender v. La Rowe
341 P.2d 906 (Montana Supreme Court, 1959)
State v. Pefley
335 P.2d 340 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1959)
Smith v. State
143 N.E.2d 408 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1957)
Martin v. State
116 A.2d 685 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1955)
Abbott v. State
69 N.W.2d 878 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1955)
State v. Fisher
106 A.2d 766 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1954)
State v. Osborne
54 A.2d 526 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1947)
State v. Bundy
168 A. 677 (New York Court of General Session of the Peace, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
166 A. 669, 35 Del. 424, 5 W.W. Harr. 424, 1933 Del. LEXIS 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-schreiber-nygensess-1933.