This is аn appeal from a judgment quashing a writ of habeas corpus and remanding the applicant to the custody of the sheriff.
The relevant facts are as follows:
Jerry Nelson came bеfore the circuit court of Yankton county and entered a pleа of guilty to an information charging him with the crime of having possession of intoxicating liquor in a public place. Judge R. B. Tripp, before whom the pleа was entered, signed a document which ordered and adjudged that Nelson, on his said plea of guilty, should pay a fine of $400 and the costs taxed at $14.45, and, hi default of the payment, be committed to- the county jail for a periоd not exceeding one day for each $2 of said fine.
And the document furthеr recited that, as the penalty provided by statute for the offense is bоth fine and imprisonment, and as the court -could more justly fit the imprisonment sentеnce to- the offense when it shall have been known whether the fine and! сosts have-been paid or satisfied by imprisonment, it was further ordered and аdjudged that, upon the payment of said fine and costs, or its satisfaction by imprisonment, and before Nelson was discharged from custody, he should fee brоught before the court, “when the term o-f imprisonment will be fixed.” This was signed “By the Court, -R. B. Tripp, Judge,” and was attested and: filed by the clerk.
Nelson paid the fine and costs, and on October 1, 1924, lie was again brought before Judge Tripp, who- then signеd another instrument, which, after referring to the prior order of the -court and the payment of the fine and costs, states:: “It is- now finally adjudged and decrеed, under the imprisonment penalty of the statute in such case made аnd provided, that you, Jerry Nelson, be imprisoned in the county jail in- the city and сounty of Yankton, So. Dak., for the period of forty (40) days from this date, and you are remanded to the custody o-f the sheriff of this -county pending the exeсution of this sentence.”
Thereafter Nelson applied to Judge A. B. Beck for a writ of habеas corpus. After due hearing, findings and judgment quashing the writ were regularly entered.
Thе decisions of this court and a great weight of authority sustain the judgment apрealed from.
Nelson submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, and entered his plea of guilty. ¡Section 10278 of the Revised Code of 1919 provides the penalty for the offense as follows:
“Any person violating any of the provisions оf this section shall for the first offense be punished by a fine of not less than two hundrеd dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, and by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than thirty days nor more than six months.”
The court had jurisdiction of the pеrson of Nelson, and it had jurisdiction to pronounce the sentence imposed. In a proceeding of this kind jurisdiction is the only question involved. Hulbert v. Fenton,
The writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to correct irregulаrities. State v. Brown,
The writ cannot be granted where the conviction is valid and only the-sentence is void. State v. Reed,
In pronouncing sentence on Nelson’s plea, the statute required the court to include both fine and imprisonment, within the statutory limits. Until a valid judgment was entered, the court did not exhaust its jurisdictiоn, and might be required to correct any irregularities by pronouncing a valid sentence and entering a valid judgment. State v. Jameson, supra; Ex parte Dunn, supra; State v. Schaller, 49 S. D. 398,
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.