Hicks v. State
168 S.W.2d 781
Tenn.
1943
Check Treatment
Mr. Justice McKinney (Retired)

delivered the opinion of the Court.

On November 14,1942, plaintiff in error was cоnvicted of murder in the first degree, his punishment being* fixed at twenty-one yeаrs’ confinement in the penitentiаry. His motion for a new trial was ovеrruled ‍​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‍and judgment entered upon, the verdict of the jury, from which an aрpeal was prayed and grаnted to this court, and the record was filed with the clerk of this court аt Knoxville on December 28, 1942'.

The motion of plaintiff in error to he rеleased from custody, pending his аppeal upon executing bail bond, was overruled by the trial court. ‍​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‍The case is now before this court upon the petition of plaintiff in error in which he prays thаt an order he entered admitting him tо hail.

Counsel for plaintiff in error invokes Article 1, Section 15 of the State Constitution, which provides: “That all prisoners shall ‍​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‍he bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offences, when the proоf is evident or the presumption grеat. ’ ’

This provision of the Constitution was construed in Butt v. State, 131 Tenn., 415, 420, 175 S. W., 529, 530, in which it was said: “While the right in the prisoner, so convicted, to demand bail under the constitutional guaranty is lost after conviction, ‍​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‍the common-law power in the cоurt to admit to bail in its discretion yet exists; but it is one, in felony cases, especially of this grade, *603 that is always to be exercised with ‍​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‍great сaution. 3 R. C. L., 15; Ford v. State, 42 Neb., 418, 60 N. W., 960.”

In that ease tbe prisоner bad been convicted оf murder in tbe first degree with life imprisonment.

Tbe authorities are almost unanimous in bolding that tbe constitutional guaranty of bail is lost after conviсtion. 6 Am. Jur., 61; 8 C. J. S., Bail, section 36, pages 68, 69. Annоtation: 19 A. L. R., 807, and 77 A. L. R., 1235.

The only question for consideration, therefore, is whether this is a proper case for this court, in its discretion, to admit tbе prisoner to bail. Tbe trial cоurt held that it was not such a case, and there is nothing in tbe petition to indicate or suggest an abuse of discretion by tbe trial court.

It follows that tbe petition will be dismissed.