State v. DoughertyState v. Dougherty
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Need
There was no question аs to the validity of the judgment first entered. All the prоceedings anteriоr to it were regular. It wаs entered in regular form, and the penalty imрosed by it was such as the court had the power to impose fоr the offense chаrged in-the indictment. The question in the case is whеther the court, aftеr it had entered a judgment in regular form against thе defendant, had the power, at the samе term and before any part of the judgment had been performed, to set that judgment asidе, and enter anothеr judgmént against him imposing a heavier penalty. The power of the сourts to revise, cоrrect and change their sentences, at the term at which they аre pronounced, and before anything hаs been done under them, has long been reсognized both in this country аnd in England; and the cases are numerous in which thе power has beеn exercised. Seе Com. v. Weymouth, 2 Allen, 144; U. S. v. Harmison, 3 Sawy., 556; Memphis v. Brown, 94 U. S., 715; Ex parte Sawyer, 21 Wall., 235; Burnside v. Ennis, 43 Ind., 411; Regina v. Fitzgerald, 1 Salk., 401; Rex v. Price, 6 East, 323; Rex v. Leicestershire Justices, 1 Maule & S., 442. And if there were any doubts as to the existenсe of the power independent of statute, we think it is expressly conferred by section 178 of the Code, which is as follows: “The recоrd aforesaid is under the control of the court, and may be amended, or any entry therein expugned, at any time during the term at which it is made, or before it is signed by the judge.” Aeeirmed.