State v. Woodbury

298 P. 794, 133 Kan. 1, 1931 Kan. LEXIS 1
Supreme Court of Kansas·Decided May 9, 1931·No. No. 29,135·Published·Cited by 26 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Hutchison, J.:

The petition for rehearing in this case presents and argues questions, with one exception, that have been heretofore considered and on which conclusions were reached as expressed in the written opinion. The reargument of them was very properly and helpfully made in the light of and in connection with the reasons given and views announced in the opinion. But after full consider[2]*2ation of the new suggestions and reargument made the court is not convinced of the duty or necessity of making any change in the opinion or the conclusions therein reached.

The one exception noted above is a new matter and different from anything that had been presented in the original briefs. It is with regard to the resentence directed to. be made. The closing paragraph of the opinion was as follows:

“The judgment is affirmed, but the cause is remanded to the district court of Brown county with instructions to resentence the defendant, imposing the penalty in accordance with the law in effect at the time of the commission of the crime.” (p. 35.)

The question is asked whether the resentence should apply to those counts only where the sentence given was wrong because it was made under the new law, while the crime charged was under the old law where the penalty was different from what it now is under the new law, or should the defendant be resentenced as to all the counts at one time? We answer this question by stating that there must be but one sentence. The resentence should cover all the counts, those where there was no mistake as well as those in which a mistake was found. The statute (R. S. 62-1512) and the well-established rule as to the sentence on any or all of the counts running concurrently or consecutively must apply to a single sentence delivered at one time only and covering all the counts on which conviction was had. Whatever concurrent or consecutive features or elements there may be prescribed by the court must all be a part of the one sentence imposed and pronounced by the court on one date only and at one time.

“A sentence is the judgment of the court before which the trial in a criminal case is had, formally declaring to accused the legal consequences of the guilt which he has confessed or of which he has been convicted.” (16 C. J. 1265.)

“In a prosecution on an information. containing a. number of counts, the jury finding the defendant guilty of several of the offenses charged, the court should pronounce a single judgment declaring the full measure of punishment to be imposed for all such offenses.” (In re Beck, 63 Kan. 57, 64 Pac. 971.)

With this explanation as to the matter of resentence, the petition for, a rehearing is denied.

Smith and Sloan, JJ., not sitting.

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

State v. Woodbury, 298 P. 794, 133 Kan. 1, 1931 Kan. LEXIS 1 (kan 1931).

298 P. 794 (State v. Woodbury) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Masterson
Court of Appeals of Kansas, 2020
State v. Warren
412 P.3d 993 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2018)
Scaife v. State
350 P.3d 1 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 2015)
State v. Morningstar
329 P.3d 1093 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2014)
State v. Guder
267 P.3d 751 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2012)
State v. Hawkins
188 P.3d 965 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 2008)
State v. Snow
144 P.3d 729 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2006)
State v. Campbell
44 P.3d 349 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2002)
State v. Remlinger
968 P.2d 671 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1998)
State v. Baldwin
941 P.2d 422 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1997)
State v. Van Winkle
889 P.2d 749 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1995)
State v. Wilson
808 P.2d 434 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1991)
State v. Osbey
710 P.2d 676 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1985)
State v. Freeman
689 P.2d 885 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1984)
City of Kansas City v. Sherman
687 P.2d 1383 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1984)
State v. Turbeville
686 P.2d 138 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1984)
State v. Lottman
633 P.2d 1178 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1981)
City of Topeka v. Martin
590 P.2d 106 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1979)
Roberts v. State
421 P.2d 48 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1966)
In re MacLean
78 P.2d 855 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1938)