State v. Stickney

108 Me. 136
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided March 15, 1911·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Emery, C. J.

The respondent was tried and convicted upon a complaint for a single sale of intoxicating liquor and containing an allegation of a prior conviction of a similar offense. He does not appear to have made any objection before verdict to the sufficiency of that allegation, nor does he appear to have brought the question of its sufficiency to the attention of the court before sentence. After [137] sentence, however, he filed a motion in arrest of judgment upon the ground of the insufficiency of that allegation to warrant the sentence.

The motion cannot be considered. It was filed after judgment, and hence too late. The sentence is the judgment of the court in a criminal case where there is a conviction. A motion in arrest of judgment is not the remedy for the correction of errors in a sentence. Galeo v. State, 107 Maine, 474, 78 At. 867; State v. Kibling, 63 Vt. 636; State v. O’Neil, 66 Vt. 356; Perry v. The People, 14 Ill. 496; Territory v. Corbett, 3 Mont. 50; Com. v. Swain, 160 Mass. 354.

Exceptions overruled.

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

State v. Stickney, 108 Me. 136 (Me. 1911).

108 Me. 136 (State v. Stickney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

King v. State
183 So. 2d 494 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1966)
Cressey v. State
211 A.2d 572 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1965)
Duncan v. State
183 A.2d 209 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1962)
State v. Melanson
126 A.2d 278 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1956)
Jenness v. State
64 A.2d 184 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1949)