196 Ky. 27 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1922
Opinion op the Court by
Granting writ of prohibition.
One Dewey Drowns was convicted of the offense of chicken stealing, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for the period of one year. The trial occurred in the Graves circuit court on the 25th day of November, 1921, and Drowns was convicted upon a plea of guilty. He entered no motion for a now trial, but tbe court did not sentence him, nor render judgment upon the verdict until the 23rd day of December, 1921, upon which day he was taken in custody by the sheriff and delivered
The petition filed before the county judge seeking the writ of habeas corpus, shows upon its face, that Drowns was adjudged guilty of the crime of chicken stealing on the 23rd day of December, 1921, and as a penalty for same to one year’s confinement at hard labor in the State Penitentiary at Eddyville, and that in pursuance of the judgment he was delivered to the penitentiary on the day of the date of the judgment. There is no pretense that under the rules adopted by the Board of Charities and Corrections, that the credits allowed for good conduct, are sufficient to diminish the time of Ms imprisonment, so that he is now or was on the 22nd of September, entitled to be discharged, and whether a writ of habeas corpus would now be an appropriate remedy in his behalf depends altogether, on whether his detention in prison is now illegal and unauthorized. A writ of habeas corpus can be invoked to release from or interfere with the custody of a prisoner, only, when he is illegally held in cus
The contention, however, is made, that the term of imprisonment in the penitentiary does not begin, at the time of the rendition of the judgment, but, begins at the time of the conviction by the jury, and for that reason the term expired one year from November 25th, instead of December 23rd, and that the court negligently failed to render judgment for 28 days, for which Drowns should have credit upon the sentence pronounced. Section 283, Criminal Code, provides that where there is a conviction for a felony, upon a plea of guilty, that the court may at once pronounce judgment, but, the language shows dearly that'this is not mandatory, but, is a matter about which the court may exercise a legal discretion, and there is nothing here to indicate that the court abused its discretion in deferring judgment until the time' of its rendition. That a court may not indefinitely defer rendering judgment and keep a convicted person in prison, or defer it to an unreasonable time is apparent without argument, but, an immemorial custom of the courts, in the country, when the prisoner does not demand an earlier sentence, is to defer the rendering of judgments upon persons convicted of felonies until a day toward the end of the term