TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lee v. State

Lee v. the State

Lee v. State, 118 S.E.2d 599 (Ga. Ct. App. 1961)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 15, 1961
Docket
No. 38769
Judges
Carlisle, Townsend, Frankum, Jordan
Citations
118 S.E.2d 599103 Ga. App. 1611961 Ga. App. LEXIS 894

Opinion — Carlisle

Carlisle, Judge.

The defendant in this case was one of the several defendants whose case was before this court under the style of Curtis v. State, 102 Ga. App. 790 ( 118 S. E. 2d 264 ). Upon the return of the remittitur to the Superior Court of Hall County, the trial judge resentenced the defendant on each of the counts of the indictment upon which he had been found guilty by the jury, each sentence imposing *162 upon him the penalty of a fine of $100 including all costs of the prosecution and carrying the further provision “that said defendant be confined in the common jail of Hall County, Georgia, until the payment of said fine of $100.” The only questions presented by this appeal are whether or not the sentences thus imposed upon this defendant are legal sentences within the meaning and intent of the decision in the cited case, and whether they are valid sentences under the provisions of Code Ann.

§ 97-9901. It is well settled in Georgia that a judge on the conviction of one charged with a criminal offense may impose a fine upon him and provide as a means of enforcing the payment of such fine that the defendant be imprisoned until the fine is paid. Such imprisonment is no part of the punishment.

Brock v. State, 22 Ga. 98 (3);

McMeekin v. State, 48 Ga. 335 (2);

Hatchcock v. State, 88 Ga. 91, 99 ( 13 S. E. 959 );

Green v. State, 112 Ga. 52 (2) ( 37 S. E. 93 ). The application of this rule imposes no great hardship upon the prisoner, since under the scheme of the law in this State there is a procedure by which he may be released from jail upon a proper showing to the ordinary of his insolvency and inability to pay the costs or fine, or either of them.

Code § 27-2804. The ruling of the ordinary on such a showing would be subject to review and any abuse of discretion on his part would constitute reversible error, thus affording the prisoner ample protection a'gainst the peril of perpetual imprisonment.

Decided February 15, 1961.

Charles H. Edwards, H. A. Stephens, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

Jeff C. Wayne, Solicitor-General, Sidney O. Smith, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Townsend, P. J., Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1964: 11970: 11996: 119642026peak 1964 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Williams v. Illinois399 U.S. 235 (1970)
  2. Williams v. State470 S.E.2d 922 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996)
  3. Farris v. City of Columbus135 S.E.2d 59 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964)

Most recent

  1. Williams v. State470 S.E.2d 922 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996)
  2. Williams v. Illinois399 U.S. 235 (1970)
  3. Farris v. City of Columbus135 S.E.2d 59 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Curtis v. State, 118 S.E.2d 264 (Ga. Ct. App. 1960) 42
Hathcock v. State, 13 S.E. 959 (Ga. 1891) 18
Green v. State, 37 S.E. 93 (Ga. 1900) 2
Brock v. State, 22 Ga. 98 (1857) 12
McMeekin v. State, 48 Ga. 335 (1873) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list