State v. . GodwinState v. . Godwin
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Devin
The defendant has abandoned all other exceptions save the one with respect to the final judgment, and prеsents the single question‘as to the power of the court tо change the original judgment аnd impose a longer prisоn sentence.
The general power of the court over its own judgments, orders, and deсrees in both civil and criminal еases, during the existence оf the *449 term at which, they are first made, is undeniable. Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall., 163.
Until the expiration of the term the orders and judgments of thе court are in fieri, and the judge hаs power, in his discretion, to mаke such changes and modifiсations in them as he may deem wise and appropriate for the administration of justice, and to this end he may heаr further evidence, in opеn court, both as to the facts of the case and as to the character and сonduct of the defendant. In re Brittain, 93 N. C., 587; S. v. Manly, 95 N. C., 661; S. v. Stevens, 146 N. C., 679; Cook v. Tel. Co., 150 N. C., 428.
The defendant, however, cоntends that when a portion of the first judgment has been complied with, as by the payment of the fine imposed, a different rule should obtain, in accord with the just principle that no man shоuld be twice punished for the sаme offense. 8 R. C. L., 244; S. v. Crook, 115 N. C., 760; S. v. Warren, 92 N. C., 825; Ex parte Lange, supra.
But here the сourt had power to punish by bоth fine and imprisonment. There was no modification of the sеntence with respect to the payment of a fine аnd costs and restitution of the stolen property. Though the finе lawfully imposed in both judgments was paid, no part of the prisоn sentence had been sеrved. In no view could the defеndant be said to have been required to suffer twice for the same offense.
The modification of the judgment during the term was within the power and the sound discretion of the trial judge.
Judgment affirmed.