|
|
Miller v. Alderhold, 288 U.S. 206 (1933)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Miller v. Alderhold, 288 U.S. 206 (1933)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 288 U.S. 188, click here.
Miller v. Alderhold No. 138 Argued January 9, 1933 Decided February 6, 1933 288 U.S. 206
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
1. One upon whom sentence in a criminal case has been suspended may at any time request the court to pronounce judgment, and in the absence of such request must be deemed to have consented to the indefinite delay. P. 210.
2. In a criminal case in the federal district court, an order for a permanent suspension of sentence is void. Ex parte United States, 242 U.S. 27. P. 209.
3. Final judgment in a criminal case means sentence, and a void order purporting permanently to suspend sentence is neither a final nor a valid judgment. P. 210.
4. Where judgment has not been pronounced upon a verdict during the term at which it was rendered, the cause continues on the docket and necessarily passes over to a succeeding term for final judgment or other appropriate action. P. 211.
5. Where the district court, in a criminal case in which a verdict has been duly returned, orders sentence suspended, it is not without jurisdiction thereafter, either at the same or a subsequent term, to impose sentence, even though the intent of the order of suspension was to suspend sentence permanently. P. 211.
56 F.2d 152 affirmed.
Certiorari, 287 U.S. 592, to review a judgment affirming a judgment dismissing a writ of habeas corpus.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Miller v. Alderhold, 288 U.S. 206 (1933) in 288 U.S. 206 288 U.S. 207–288 U.S. 209. Original Sources, accessed November 25, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=RXYH3EQ14WUW8CL.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Miller v. Alderhold, 288 U.S. 206 (1933), in 288 U.S. 206, pp. 288 U.S. 207–288 U.S. 209. Original Sources. 25 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=RXYH3EQ14WUW8CL.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Miller v. Alderhold, 288 U.S. 206 (1933). cited in 1933, 288 U.S. 206, pp.288 U.S. 207–288 U.S. 209. Original Sources, retrieved 25 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=RXYH3EQ14WUW8CL.
|