History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. Stickney
108 Me. 136
Me.
1911
Check Treatment
Emery, C. J.

The respondent was tried and convicted upon a complaint for a single sale of intoxicating liquor and containing an allegation of a prior conviction of a similar offense. He does not appear to have made any objection before verdict to the sufficiency of that allegation, nor does he appear to have brought the question of its sufficiency to the attention of the court before sentence. After *137sentence, however, he filed a motion in arrest of judgment upon the ground of the insufficiency of that allegation to warrant the sentence.

The motion cannot be considered. It was filed after judgment, and hence too late. The sentence is the judgment of the court in a criminal case where there is a conviction. A motion in arrest of judgment is not the remedy for the correction of errors in a sentence. Galeo v. State, 107 Maine, 474, 78 At. 867; State v. Kibling, 63 Vt. 636; State v. O’Neil, 66 Vt. 356; Perry v. The People, 14 Ill. 496; Territory v. Corbett, 3 Mont. 50; Com. v. Swain, 160 Mass. 354.

Exceptions overruled.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Stickney
Court Name: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Date Published: Mar 15, 1911
Citation: 108 Me. 136
Court Abbreviation: Me.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.