State v. Stanley

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Stanley

22 So. 2d 657, 207 La. 1082, 1945 La. LEXIS 840

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 30, 1945

DocketNo. 37808.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 So. 2d 657 (State v. Stanley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Stanley, 22 So. 2d 657, 207 La. 1082, 1945 La. LEXIS 840 (La. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

ROGERS, Justice.

This is an appeal by N. G. Stanley from his conviction and sentence on a charge of disturbing the peace by being drunk on the streets of the Town of Sulphur. The trial which resulted in defendant’s conviction and sentence was held de novo in the district court on appeal from defendant’s conviction and sentence in the' mayor’s court in the Town of Sulphur.

The appeal presents for consideration the identical questions which were reviewed and disposed of by this Court under a writ of certiorari and rule nisi issued upon defendant’s application in the proceeding entitled Town of Sulphur v. N. G. Stanley, 207 La. 1075, 22 So.2d 655. Neither the constitutionality nor the legality of the ordinance or the penalty imposed upon the defendant was questioned in the mayor’s court or attacked in the district court. In the trial, which was held de novo in the district court, defendant’s guilt or innocence was the sole question presented for consideration and decision. The proceeding in the mayor’s court was not an issue on the trial in the district court and any alleged political prejudice existing against defendant in the mayor’s court was irrelevant and immaterial, since the entire case was heard and disposed of anew by the judge of the district court.

The Town of Sulphur has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that this Court is without jurisdiction for the reason that the sentence imposed is only for thirty days imprisonment in jail and no question of the legality or constitutionality of the penalty imposed is involved in the case, and on the further ground that defendant, having appealed from his conviction and sentence in the mayor’s court to *1085 the district court, is not entitled to a second appeal to this Court.

In cases of this kind the appellate jurisdiction is vested in the district court and not in this Court. Constitution of 1921, Article 7, sections 10 and 36. Defendant, therefore, is without right to prosecute the appeal to this Court from the decision of the district court rendered in the trial de novo on appeal from the mayor’s court. State v. Delia, 206 La. 574, 19 So.2d 257.

For the -reasons assigned, the appeal is dismissed.

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

ROGERS, Justice.

This is an appeal by N. G. Stanley from his conviction and sentence on a charge of disturbing the peace by being drunk on the streets of the Town of Sulphur. The trial which resulted in defendant’s conviction and sentence was held de novo in the district court on appeal from defendant’s conviction and sentence in the' mayor’s court in the Town of Sulphur.

The appeal presents for consideration the identical questions which were reviewed and disposed of by this Court under a writ of certiorari and rule nisi issued upon defendant’s application in the proceeding entitled Town of Sulphur v. N. G. Stanley, 207 La. 1075, 22 So.2d 655. Neither the constitutionality nor the legality of the ordinance or the penalty imposed upon the defendant was questioned in the mayor’s court or attacked in the district court. In the trial, which was held de novo in the district court, defendant’s guilt or innocence was the sole question presented for consideration and decision. The proceeding in the mayor’s court was not an issue on the trial in the district court and any alleged political prejudice existing against defendant in the mayor’s court was irrelevant and immaterial, since the entire case was heard and disposed of anew by the judge of the district court.

The Town of Sulphur has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that this Court is without jurisdiction for the reason that the sentence imposed is only for thirty days imprisonment in jail and no question of the legality or constitutionality of the penalty imposed is involved in the case, and on the further ground that defendant, having appealed from his conviction and sentence in the mayor’s court to *1085 the district court, is not entitled to a second appeal to this Court.

In cases of this kind the appellate jurisdiction is vested in the district court and not in this Court. Constitution of 1921, Article 7, sections 10 and 36. Defendant, therefore, is without right to prosecute the appeal to this Court from the decision of the district court rendered in the trial de novo on appeal from the mayor’s court. State v. Delia, 206 La. 574, 19 So.2d 257.

For the -reasons assigned, the appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 So. 2d 657, 207 La. 1082, 1945 La. LEXIS 840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stanley-la-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack